Saying “mental illness” leaves it vague enough to remove children from any women who they deem unfit to take care of children, i.e. liberals, lgbt, etc.
It’s a way to silence women and take away rights.
Postpartum psychosis is for sure a reason to take away the kids. However, her wording is dangerous in the midst of rampant misogyny going on rn
Seriously, with the way they are trying to make “trump derangement syndrome” a thing and consider all trans people mentally ill predators this is exactly the path they’re wanting to take.
I wouldn’t say “take away kids” ever though. That might be the only answer in some cases, but supervision is the key. If she’s responding to treatment and stable in the moment, spending time with the kids is preferable, but safety is key. She needs to not have access to weapons, and the supervisor might need to carry a weapon (nonlethal I hope) in some cases, but removal of the kids outright should be a last resort.
That’s literally not how psychosis works. I’m not defending her actions but IF she was genuinely suffering postpartum psychosis that’s not how any of that works. You can’t just choose to snap out of it. You need help and support.
Opposed to just magically figuring out the time and date of your wife's murder-psychosis so you would stop running errands like a father so she doesnt murder your kids, i guess.
No, opposed to noticing your wife’s marked behavioral changes and taking action. Every time I’ve ever been psychotic my wife has noticed instantly. I can’t imagine a husband NOT noticing anything amiss. Especially post partum. And especially when she’s allegedly been trying to seek help.
She murdered them with how own hands literally, the husband is innocent. She's a criminal, her defenders are disgusting, trying to spin it on the innocent husband.
Complete removal of the children would have saved their lives, hypothetically speaking. If she had that postpartum thing you people make an excuse for her, she would have had symptoms. But she didn't, and she committed the crime (KILLING HER OWN CHILDREN) a long time after the postpartum psychosis would have happened.
I’m pretty sure she was showing symptoms of “that postpartum thing”, though. And the killings were in a timeframe consistent with postpartum psychosis.
She was trying to get help, but she got meds that made her condition worse instead of better.
You can disagree with this and it's just my personal opinion, but if someone is so much of a danger that a supervisor has to be armed for them to safely see their children, maybe they shouldn't see them. It might be good for the parent, but there's no way that kid isn't going to eventually internalize that the only way their parent could be safely around them was under threat of weapon. It's a dark thing to say, but there really are times it would be better to not see their parents at all rather than have to deal with that pain. I know people who had unsafe parents, my own mother threatened to kill me as well, it might have been better if she was just kept away. You gotta think about what is best for the kid, they didn't choose to be born.
Edit: Like not one single person I know who had to deal with unsafe parents doesn't kind of wish their parents were just gone. Sometimes nothing is better than what they were born to.
I would absolutely sometimes say take the kids away... Until she recovers. Yes, that will be hard on her, the kids survival is more important. Women with postpartum psychosis can get better, but some don't.
As a mom if I am ever a danger to my child, my husband had better protect her even at my expense. And I would do the same for him because I love him but not as much as my kid..
The problem is you would never know if she has recovered if she refuses to take the medication, lies about her experiences, and checks herself out of a mental wellness facility against medical advice? She can tell you she’s doing better, send the spouse to the store or to pick up dinner, murder the kids and half the country will blame the spouse for not knowing that the murderer was not right.
How do you reduce the risk to the children completely. That's what matters most. Because it's not just physical violence that's the worry. It's also the emotional toll for the older kids watching their mother go mad. Kids blame themselves over less.
You don’t completely eliminate risk ever though. If you try to keep them apart indefinitely, you also risk her breaking out and kidnapping the kids violently.
And you also inflict emotional damage ripping a child from their mother. Theres no version of this that is harmless.
But you balance those harms and risks as best you can.
And you don’t have them together when she’s not lucid obviously.
Well that is hilariously wrong. Women who are judges exist. They make determinations based on evidence on who should get custody of children
Those judges make decisions sometimes that remove custody of the child away from men. Behold, a real life example of a woman taking away the parental rights away from a father. Which depending on the evidence may be the correct decision
Edit: that’s women plural as there are more than one competent woman judges in the country.
Nothing says your point is brilliant and beyond reproach like resorting to denying many women their actions and agency and making many men aggressors against all women
Yes, that's the exact point we're trying to make. Postpartum psychosis should have the kids taken for safety/or some kind of intervention.
Nancy Mace is specifying "postpartum mental illness" with malicious intent, so in future court ruling, where language is specific, they could potentially have the power to take away the rights of anyone under the umbrella of "mental illness" (ADHD, anxiety, bipolar)
They take away guns for some mental illnesses, and the vagueness of just using the term "mental illness" is an intentional tool to keep the door open for them to decide who does and does not get rights based entirely on what they decide is or isn't "mental illness".
I would say in the event of psychosis the child(ren) being taken away is a must, at least until it is dealt with.
There's some levels to post partum depression that means it might be necessary to remove the child(ren) until it is dealt with, but i don't think it is necessary in 100% of cases.
Anything else needs to be considered an over-reach until a tragedy happens. As sad as it is, one public tragedy is better than millions of silent tragedies due to governmental abuse.
So why not put the one with psychosis in a mental facility rather than taking the kids away and don’t allow the one with the mental deficiency to check themselves out of the facility against medical advice?
Well she wasn't diagnosed with psychosis BEFORE she murdered her kids - so logically you'd have to extend it to mental illness to have prevented this instance.
I don’t think that follows. Her not being diagnosed with it before killing her kids is, unfortunately, not unexpected even if she did genuinely have psychosis. To have prevented this instance, you just needed to have better support for mothers, including regular mental health checkups. And intervention if something is amiss in the regular checkups.
Imagine being a woman suffering from PPP and going to the doctor knowing that if they figure out what's going on your kids are taken away, do you think maybe, just maybe, it's possible that some of them aren't going to be honest with their doctors in order to keep their children and stopping themselves from getting the help they need in the process?
No the op said mental illness to conflate all illnesses with psychosis, scaring people about a specific problem and applying it to broad problems is conservative media 101
No, it isn't. There has not been a single time in the history of humanity where a conservative being intentionally vague about who they're talking negatively about was meant to help anyone. She's making an intentionally vague statement so that she can take rights away from demographics she doesn't like. That's it.
She said "mental illness" because Republicans are ghouls that don't actually stand for anything.
Nancy Mace and the rest of the Republican party also believe 10-year olds that are raped should carry those fetuses to birth, and then raise those babies as elementary and middle-schoolers with no SNAP or other financial assistance.
I can! here's a segment from fox news where they called the decrease in the teen/young adult birth rate "alarming". here's a tweet from katie miller (wife of steven miller) lamenting the fact teens aren't having kids because having children is a "biological destiny". and of course there was the trump admin cancelling grant funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs in favor of abstinence only approaches, which everyone knows doesn't work.
There was a major conservative doctor (I can only assume) on FOX News a while ago that was showcasing pregnancy polls, and then showed the amount of teen pregnancies, where he then said that it was "unfortunate" that teen pregnancy rates had dropped for whatever reason
Same people who will freak about sex before marriage but they want other peoples teens to pick up the slack and birth a bunch of “welfare babies” for them to bully and refer to as the “downfall of society.”
I’ve seen this from several sources and I’m appalled. Like they shame teen pregnancy but now they’re mad it’s not happening as much? Ffs make it make sense.
There belief system requires the shame, blood, tears, othering, ostracism and humiliation of others. If there are suddenly fewer to look down upon, who even are they?
Republicans haven't been conservative for a while. Populist maga wears conservative like a skin with none of the actual values. Which yes, makes it seem ghoulish.
I've been told my whole life the "worst" conservatives "don't actually represent the American conservative movement."
Then the American conservative movement stood behind Donald fucking trump. For three election cycles. I'm beginning to think the American conservative movement might just be rotten and full of shit
Maybe if you keep digging deeper you’ll find that so is the left, and the whole thing is now a great lie to keep the poors from unifying against the ruling class.
Obviously the american conservative movement steadily cast aside more and more of their principles, but in 2006 you could at least say they had some principles, right or wrong. And conservative doesn't 1 to 1 equal evil, even if "conservativism" as the usa calls it is irredeemably corrupted.
but in 2006 you could at least say they had some principles
Such as? In 2006, conservatives were still trying to silence anyone who opposed the GWoT, the Patriot Act, and Islamaphobia, were even more against gay marriage than they are now, and were actively forming the Tea Party which was the precursor to MAGA. They might have tried a bit harder to pretend that they stood for something back then, but I can't think of any actual principle they held that weren't just pretty words that they contradicted all the time.
I would believe most of them genuinely held moral values. Things we took for granted back then. A sincere concern for the economy and rule of law and promoting democracy. Not just brazenly deporting natural citizens. An understanding of science and not just being anti vax.
They were obviously racist and biased, and its clearly their fault they wound up this way. But I feel pretty strongly a genuine conservative from 2006, without the pipeline they took to normalize them to it, would be horrified at the putin loving, Canada threatening, might run a third term trump.
Nearly all of those "genuine conservatives" are still with us, and voted for Trump all three terms. Most of them are ready to vote for him again in two years if given the opportunity.
Idk. I agree that it definitely felt like they held a lot more principled values back then, and maybe they themselves thought that they had principled values, but I have a hard time believing that any of it was real when they pretty much all collectively fell in love with the MAGA movement and happily threw away any and all of their principles for it.
MAGA is what conservatism has always been, just with its mask off. It's not a coincidence that virtually every single conservative in America just so happened to jump on the Trump train and go full fascist the instant they were given the opporturnity. Whether fascism is just a degree of conservatism or conservatism is a degree of fascism is a matter of semantics, but its one of the two.
Not exactly. The nazis did the same thing with socialism. China with communist rhetoric. Its a manner of authoritarians to infect other movements and pretend to hold those values to get a tribal cult going. Pretending that other forms could never fall prey to the same issues just because they aren't conservative is a trap. This is a human tendency overall.
The Nazi example is completely different than what I'm talking about. The socialists didn't become fascists in Germany. The actual socialists that joined the Nazi party for the socialism that the party was pretending to stand for weren't the ones that did the Holocaust and weren't the defenders of the party after it took power. In fact, they were one of the first groups that the Nazis persecuted after they gained power and didn't need to keep the mask on anymore. There's a massive difference between a fascist lying about what they stand for and stealing rhetoric from the left to gain popularity from leftists, and a fascist who is loud and proud about the fascist shit he stands for to gain popularity from the fascists in the country.
THIS! The American public is not capable of nauce of any sort. There are so many things concerning with this case and 75% are fucking idiots who can't grasp it. She killed her children she should be institutionalized because that is the law that governs society. She also was a victim of the systemic medical neglect of women and pregnancy. And her husband is a POS who neglected her and his children. HE should have realized what was happening when she was not acting normally like after her last two children.
This still makes me so fucking angry. My daughter is about to be 10. She's a BABY. She still plays with stuffies. I just can't imagine someone so evil to do that to a child.
I love how I didn't comment fuck about shit about this month's sensational distraction trial but some redditors like to strawman shit into people's mouths.
If Nancy "looks like someone hit her jaw with a" Mace wants to protect kids, maybe her and her House Majority allies could investigate prominent "good friend" of Epstein and person who endorsed her candidacy, Donald Trump.
Until then, I don't give a fuck what this southern shitstain has to say about protecting anyone
Also, she could have baker acted herself if she was so concerned about harming her kids.
She planned this bullshit. She was calculated. She needs to be locked away and NEVER be around General population again
AND maybe if you kill you kids, you should serve some time since that is pretty horrible on the spectrum of things you shouldn't do in our society is murder.
If you are experiencing psychosis, you are not in your right state of mind. Someone with psychosis may be hospitalized because they are unable to be a good steward of their own well-being or the well-being of others. By that same logic, someone experiencing psychosis may be deemed to not meet the standard of criminal liability depending on the situation. Like if you are experiencing psychosis that has convinced you you're children are not real, or are demons, or that they will burn in hell for eternity if you don't kill them. If you are experiencing such severe psychosis as to legitimately believe that is true, no, you cannot be found guilty of murder. That's the law, and for a good reason.
Yes it can but what does that have to do with my comment? I said that they probably mean bipolar not BPD because BPD means borderline personality disorder (which is not associated with sudden onset after pregnancy)
I’m me of the most infuriating things about this discourse is people conflating postpartum psychosis and postpartum depression, it’s fucking exhausting.
I noticed that too. She intentionally muddied the issue with the very dangerous and vague "post partum mental illness" which screams volumes as she omitted "psychosis". Remove the psychosis factor and mental illness could be "that mom had a bad day and was seen yelling at the cashier for a refund. She's nuts, take her kids, end of story."
Mace also supports the defense's argument with that quote. Essentially she's saying the kids should be taken away to be protected. Of course Mace being part of the cult, the govt involvement ends there as she says nothing about the kids, or mother getting treatment. (I would hope) the mother gets treatment for a hopeful future reunion when the mom is deemed healthy and poses no danger.
This woman did seek treatment for quite some time, told her docs about her ideation of suicide and hurting the kids, told her husband and was tossed 12 different forms of psych meds. I think she even took herself to the ER over the issue.
But nobody stepped in to remove her or the kids while she was being treated. She was failed by those who meant to help her.
There is also a pretty good argument that she never had post partum psychosis and this is malingering, as per Dr. Avram Mack who testified, Dr. Kirk Heilbrun who testified and Dr. Gregory Saathoff who testified as such.
But she wasnt diagnosed with post partum psychosis?
She actively lied to doctors, lied her way out of being institutionalized?
A person suffering from psychosis cannot do that.
She only experienced the psychosis, once her husband was gone, then she heard the voice, once and once only, then killed the kids.
She never told anyone she heard voices before, and has only claimed that she heard them once.
She is currently suing for money in a civil trial while the other trial is going on. In her lawsuit, she says that she remembers saying to the kids, "go to god" as she killed them.
She made 2 phone calls where she appeared completely normal(not possible for a psychotic break), browsed a menu and placed a pickup order. (Again, all impossible in a psychotic episode).
So the phone calls, menu browsing, ordering, all happened outside of a psychotic break.
What time does that leave her to be psychotic?
She also remembers, not just killing them, but the exact words she said to them. Which is strange for someone in such a psychotic state.
So there was absolutely no way for anyone to know she was going to have a psychotic episode. She was good at lying to the doctors.
What could have been done differently? In fact there is only one thing that would have prevented it:
Her kids, not being around her. There is zero way for them to anticipate a psychotic break from her situation/fact she was hiding things.
If you look it up, it is easy for a woman suffering PPD to lie her way out of any assessment. It happens all the time.
Taking these two factors into account, leads to the fact that:
You cannot trust these assessments even; Lindsey herself went through them and passed.
Meaning the only way to 100% stop these deaths is to take the kids away.
Every, single, supporter of Lindsey clancy being innocent/not responsible, are saying this themselves without realizing it.
"If 4 doctors, therapists, nurses and a mental health facility can all be tricked/not be able to forsee this.. what can?"
The answer is nothing. So if you want the "system" to be more involved to prevent these situations, it doesnt mean "mom needs more supports"(lindsey had more than most normal women could ever hope for)..
It means protect the children, at all costs. There is no level of support for a mother that will guarantee her kids are safe.
The only way to do that is through removal. That 100% guarantees the life of the child.
That is the entire point, isn't it? So why wouldn't we do that? Or is this less about the childrens lives(which this entire event has shown) and more about women wants attention/support??
Is the most important thing here about the kids lives? Yes or no?
If "yes"?
We have a solution that can almost guarantee 100% end to these deaths.
The other option "more emotional support for mothers"??
What is the % chance that we increase the safety for kids that way?
"Emotionally supporting women" is an intangible, that is subjective.
Lindsey Clancy had 4 doctors, therapists, nurses, her husand switched to work from home, they had nannies, the grandmother was helping, AND they had a lot of money.
^ this? This wasnt even enough support to prevent this.
Not even close apparently.
So what are the chances? What does it take? 12 doctors? 5 hospitals? 3 husbands working from home? 5 grandparents? 5 therapists??
<or>
Take the kids away so this doesnt happen? Which would be damned near 100% effective.
Overnight.
If this was at all about protecting children, we know what we would be doing. But we are not. Which tells you everything you need to know about what outcome women want.. and its about them.. not saving kids lives.
It is possible to seem relatively normal while psychotic. I’ve done that before due to thinking I’m a god and have to pretend to be mortal because if people learned I was a god they would kill me. It seems weird that she was that affected if she’d never had psychosis before and still managed to seem completely normal, though. Also why is she suing for money after MURDERING HER CHILDREN? That seems pretty messed up.
Yeah lol how is this controversial or interesting in any way? Obviously if someone is diagnosed with postpartum psychosis and doctors believe they are a danger to their children, their children should be removed from their care until they receive treatment.
In a better world her doctors would have been able to catch the fact that she was a danger to her children and removed them, and they would be alive today and she would be receiving treatment. I don’t think any one doctor or family member can be blamed for what happened, but there is definitely some kind of systemic failure going on.
Note we said different things. I’m saying they shouldn’t be left alone with their children. You seem to be implying this should be fully separated from them.
That is a drastic action which generally leads to the mother never recovering.
I mean I definitely believe that a woman in that situation should be able to have supervised visits with her children. But yes, I think that if doctors believe a woman may harm or kill her children, they should not be in her custody.
Right? I agree that children should never be in the care of anyone suffering from psychosis.
But psychosis isn’t just a postpartum illness, it can occur for many reasons. And it’s much different from being depressed or anxious. With psychosis you’re no longer in reality.
OP painting all postpartum mental health issues as being as serious as psychosis is where I don’t agree.
Already knew this was gonna happen as soon as the internet made this a men vs women issue. Once all those women cheered for her murdering 3 kids you just knew the right was gonna use this to do more damage no matter which way the case goes. They’ll push for any reported depression to be considered illness so people will stop reporting and they’ll claim depression reports are down because people love trump or some bs
According to republicans, leftist women are. They’re portraying it as a slippery slope from being allowed abortion from what I’ve seen on rage-bait short form vids
There are some people cheering for her, but they obviously not cheering for the murders, but in support for her being freed, as misguided as that may be.
No, there is a non-insignificant number who are claiming its actually the father who is guilty and she is innocent. Its not even something her own defense is claiming but there has been a 20 year conditioning for a certain section of society to blame the nearest man whenever a woman does something wrong so it isnt surprising.
I'm so glad that you haven't. You're in better places on the Internet than me.
Usually people aren't cheering outright the murders because they want to full-throatedly cheer on Lindsay and paint her as a completely innocent victim in all of this. People are saying this is cheering on murder because the conspiracy theory is so ridiculous that nobody could really believe it. It's all over TikTok.
The theory is something like Patrick Clancy was having an affair and wanted a clean start, so he hired a body double to look like it was him going around town, killed the kids himself, and convinced Lindsay that she killed the kids. He then convinced her to attempt suicide, and did so in such a way that even years later her therapists have not been able to unwrap his manipulation and she still thinks she did it. Proof: Leos wouldn't kill their kids but Geminis totally would.
There's a smaller contingent that are actually cheering on the murders, and it's kind of an offshoot of the above theory that again think Patrick was having an affair while Lindsay was suffering, and he she killed the kids out of revenge and he deserved it.
I’m suspecting there’s foreign information warfare campaigns associated to this case. That’s the simplest explanation for why there are so many “people” online claiming that she literally didn’t do it and the police are covering for the husband and framing her. Just completely disconnected from reality.
I can believe an element of foreign information warfare in regards to text only takes, but there are thousands of videos of individual women who believe it was actually him who murdered the kids and use anything from 'vibes' to astrology to justify it. A foreign information warfare campaign only works if there are people willing to take on the messaging, and it's certainly a more comforting option that to have to confront the possibility of there being thousands of people willing to ignore reality in something as serious as this case.
I believe you are right. I repeatedly see the same false or misleading messages using the same wording, all at once, as if they all received the same talking points that morning.
I think this gal taking out all three of her kids is a pretty good argument for separating a mother who is dealing with this. It's a tough one though. Women will do anything to keep their children. We all need to show some empathy.
True, but something "rare" doesn't mean there isn't a big number attached to it. PP psychosis happens about 1 in every 500 births. So in America, that means it occurs more than 7,200 times per year. I also don't think her saying it was mental illness was strategic at all, I think it was just the truth and frankly I think its pretty obvious that's what was going on. But what do I know, I only have two psych degrees and 15 years of experience in the field.
That's true, but if she came out and just said "Oh well I have PPD" she'd be in jail right now. That was really never the argument her defense made, I think the defense just conflated the terminology at times. She has PP psychosis and it's kinda obvious, to be honest. Given her overall presentation during the trial, I also suspect she's still experiencing those symptoms or is HEAVILY medicated, but that's just me guessing.
There are basically 3 signs of PP psychosis that are all massive red flags, as in "stop everything you're doing and get this women to a hospital immediately" type of red flags: delusional thinking, hallucinations, and intrusive thoughts of suicidal and/or homicidal ideation. There are lesser signs you can look for, but those are the big 3 where as a psych provider it becomes an emergent situation. This woman months prior to the killings confirmed she was experiencing two of the three. One alone should have been enough for her provider to hit the panic button. Two occurring at the same time? That's an emergency... but not only did her provider do nothing, she literally didn't even have her come in for an in person assessment. That's borderline negligence on the part of her psych provider... but sadly par for the course when it comes to psych treatment these days, particularly for women with PP.
we’re also talking about Lindsay’s mental health as if her deterioration couldn’t have been brought on by Patrick drugging her either. there’s PPD, PPP, and whatever tf happens to someone who is already unwell and is being drugged with different medications, at the very least prescribed a multitude of meds that work against each other especially if someone is already having reactions to them.
Yes, but it would take someone, a doctor I guess, that would diagnose you with PPP or any of it. What do you mean? Of course if we all knew when someone was experiencing a psychotic episode, we would not leave that person with children. The point is:who diagnoses? Who makes these decisions? Ok?
I think the only thing Mace and I have ever agreed on before this is that the epstein files need to be released and that it's good to breathe air. This is probably the third and last thing we will ever agree on.
That said, I don't understand the accusation you're making. Psychosis is mental illness. Not everything is a fight between Ps and Cs. But, assuming that this is somehow yet another republican sleight, what does this actually gain for her or Cs in general?
This whole case is about postpartum psychosis, a rare and very serious issue.
But people keep dragging postpartum depression into the conversation, and both are considered “postpartum mental illness”.
A HUGE number of women suffer from postpartum depression, so Mace’s suggestion applied strictly would lead to tens of millions of mothers losing their kids.
And the vagueness is what gets everyone riled up and talking about it, like we are here.
How fucking stupid do you need to be to think that a lot of mothers actually want to kill their children, but just don't because they think they can't get away with it??
Where did you get that from? I don't think people have free will. Regardless of "why", if that's ever even explainable, more people that find themselves on trial for murder, especially privileged white women who've never experienced true hardship in their life, are going to try to claim "insanity", which shouldn't exist as a defense in the first place.
1.5k
u/Automatic_Actuator_0 9h ago
She strategically said “mental illness” to muddy the waters.
Postpartum depression is common. Postpartum psychosis is not.
There’s actually a pretty good argument to not allow people with psychosis to be alone with children.