Column By Mike Bibb
“Which might help explain why I don’t see any difference between a mother and a doctor aborting an innocent, defenseless unborn baby and someone intentionally murdering someone else because they wanted to. Nor do I understand society’s rules that separate these similarities. Why is willfully terminating a human fetus permissible because it’s “an inconvenience,” “a woman’s right to choose,” or “healthcare,” but plunging a knife into the throat of a subway passenger is homicide?”
— “What Am I Missing,” Mike Bibb, Gila Herald, Aug. 22, 2026.
The Gila Herald article above was written before the jury received its instructions in the current Lindsey Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts.
Mrs. Clancy, by strangulation, murdered all three of her young children.
There’s no disputing that fact. Both prosecution and defense recognize the charges are valid.
The controversy seems to revolve around the possible penalty — should Lindsey receive First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Temporary Insanity, or Innocent.
The Temporary Insanity stems from her use of various pharmaceutical concoctions, which the defense insists altered her mind to such an extent that she momentarily went berserk and killed her children.
Apparently, a few jury members are leaning toward this argument and, after five days, have not reached a unanimous decision.
The prosecution differs, insisting Lindsey purposely planned the deed, knew what she was doing, and the use of drugs was just a prop in the scheme to avoid Murder One allegations.
Massachusetts does not have the death penalty, so that does not factor into the jury’s decision.
The jury has nine women and three men.
Outside the courthouse, throngs of women and men have gathered to offer support for Lindsey, many vocally advocating leniency. A few call for outright acquittal.
The death of the three children, a tragedy, has devolved into a secondary issue; the fate of Lindsay is of prime importance.
So, what’s going on here?
To me, it appears the “abortion mentality” has now extended outside the womb. If a mother no longer cares about the life and safety of her unborn child, and she is willing to have it mutilated and removed from her body, then why should she have more concern for her eight-month-old or two-year-old children living with her at home?
If, for whatever reason, she didn’t abort the babies, but now feels she should have, and takes the drastic measures to choke the babies to death — and plans the caper by staging certain events throughout the duration of the crime to make it appear she has lost her mind — has gained a certain amount of empathy.
However, regardless of public opinion, the severity of the three homicides cannot be disregarded in attempting to appease the wishes of a partisan crowd.
These people are merely bystanders, cheering for their particular cause. They were not directly involved in the crime or connected to the trial’s facts, evidence, or witnesses.
They’re just noise—regurgitating similar noise they saw on TikTok.
Unfortunately, this jury may ultimately be unable to reach a verdict, and Lindsey will remain incarcerated until another trial is scheduled — if it is believed an unbiased judgment can be reached.
If not, it’s my understanding Lindsey will be admitted into a hospital to continue lifelong therapy.
She will not be released into the public for the simple reason everyone knows she killed her three kids.
Unless, somehow, she gets lucky and receives an O.J. Simpson “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” bewildering decision.
The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author.
