The case of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who admitted to strangling her three young children, has become a flashpoint in a broader cultural war over the value of children’s lives. Writing for PJ Media, contributor Catherine Salgado argues that the controversy surrounding Clancy is not about her guilt — which she considers settled — but about how decades of abortion rhetoric have shifted the way many on the left view the killing of children.
Clancy killed her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — in 2023 and later claimed she was suffering from postpartum depression and heard a voice urging her to act. She admitted to the killings, and her DNA was found on the exercise bands used to strangle the children. A psychologist testified that the level of premeditation indicated Clancy understood what she was doing. A 911 call captured her husband Patrick Clancy’s desperate discovery of the bodies.
The trial ended in a mistrial, but Salgado writes that the real debate tearing the country apart is “whether it is inherently evil to murder children.” She points to a group of women who gathered outside the courthouse to show support for Clancy, holding signs that read “Tell her we love her.” Liberal women have reportedly worn T-shirts backing Clancy, and online fundraisers have raised over $835,000 for her — money raised from more than 25,000 supporters, according to a post cited in the article.
Salgado connects this support to the evolution of abortion advocacy. She argues that once society accepts the premise that killing a baby is permissible under certain conditions — such as cases of rape or viability — there are no logical limits to where that line can be drawn. Democrats, she claims, have steadily moved the goalposts over the decades: from supporting abortion in rare cases, to first-trimester abortion, to partial-birth abortion and, in her view, infanticide. She notes that every Senate Democrat and nearly every House Democrat voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require care for infants who survive an attempted abortion.
“Leftists believe that individual life is not inherently valuable,” Salgado writes. She ties this to radical feminism, arguing that in a household of mother, father, and children, only the mother is considered important. Abortion rhetoric, she says, has eroded the notion of maternal love as a profound and inviolable bond.
The article also worries about copycat effects, suggesting that the attention and sympathy Clancy has received could inspire others. Salgado cites an example of another woman in Illinois who killed her baby, though she provides no details. She draws a parallel to rhetoric around transgenderism, which she claims has encouraged violence — a comparison likely to further inflame the ongoing cultural debate.
Salgado is a PJ Media contributor whose work has also appeared in The Rogue Review and Media Research Center. She received the Andrew Breitbart MVP award in 2021.
Source: pjmedia.com — https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2026/09/04/the-lindsay-clancy-debate-is-the-result-of-decades-of-abortion-rhetoric-n4956901
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. Do your own research and consult a licensed professional before making financial decisions.
