The Clancy Trial has been disturbing to me for so many reasons. First of all, children lost their lives at the hands of their own mother.
Obviously, the mother should go to prison for the rest of her life, minimally. That would have been the conventional wisdom, but not now. Now, other mothers are rallying to her defense and completely melting down now that there has been a mistrial.
Also, a mother who killed her kids should be begging for punishment, not pushing to be let out of jail as soon as possible. Where's her remorse?
As bad as all of that is, what is happening in Canada is way worse. Exponentially worse.
WARNING: The Lindsay Clancy trial heads for a mistrial as the jury remained deadlocked. But for Nellie Bowles of Free Press “The deeper idea being proposed here seems to be that moms should kind of be able to kill their kids. Like, if they’re really, really stressed,” she wrote.…
— John Fund (@johnfund) September 4, 2026
At first, I thought that had to be hyperbole. Surely, Canada doesn't allow mothers to kill their babies less than 1-year-old. They do, for all intents and purposes.
Here is what Grok had to say about Canada's law:
Canada’s infanticide law is a specific form of culpable homicide in the Criminal Code. It applies only to a mother who causes the death of her own newly born child while her mind is disturbed because of childbirth or lactation. It is both a stand-alone offence and a partial defence that can reduce a murder charge.Definition (s. 233)
A female person commits infanticide when, by a wilful act or omission, she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof, or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child, her mind is then disturbed.Key elements
- The accused must be the child’s mother (a female person).
- The child must be her “newly-born child,” defined in s. 2 as a person under one year of age.
The death must result from a wilful act or omission.- At that time she must not have fully recovered from the effects of giving birth, and her mind must be disturbed because of those effects or because of lactation.
Basically, every woman is dealing with the effects of childbirth and/or lactation in the first year so it's open season on killing your babies in Canada. The most that may happen? A 5-year prison sentence.
Remember, when pro-life women (like myself) said abortion up until birth was a slippery slope?
Welcome to the slippery slope. What the difference between a child about to enter the world through the vaginal canal and a 3-day-old baby? Not much. So, if it's acceptable to kill one, it must be acceptable to kill the other.
Oh, what tangled webs we weave.
The logical next step of full term abortion is post birth abortion. Who knows it may stand up to 18 years old.
— Heritage American (@medmeatgrinder) September 4, 2026
The next step, of course, is to extend the logic past infancy. If a “disturbed mind” after birth can turn the killing of a baby into a 5-year hybrid offense, why stop at twelve months?
A child who still needs someone to cook, dress them, and keep them alive is not independent. Push the cutoff to 7 or 8 and the argument writes itself: it is unfair to force a woman to keep raising a child she no longer wants.
Some corners of TikTok already treat Lindsay Clancy as a victim who should walk, including for the older child. Once dependency, not age, becomes the test, “newly born” is just the opening bid.
Sometimes I wonder if I’m too rigid — if I should hear the other side out and bend a little. Then I hear something like this and I remember why I don’t want anything in common with these people.
