On Sunday, Fox News reported, “Calls to repeal women’s rights to vote are emerging from the online firestorm over the Lindsay Clancy trial, prompting Republican women to warn that the intraparty rhetoric could hurt the GOP.”
The fact that this article was published by Fox News was itself noteworthy. Press Baron Rupert Murdoch is one of the few remaining centers of power on the right who is strong enough to pick fights with Trump and his MAGA supporters. In recent years, Murdoch’s outlets have carved out a position for themselves as gatekeepers who work to protect the GOP brand from the most self-destructive impulses of MAGA. One recent example of this phenomenon is the decision to fire (or at least take off the air) the firebrand election denier Maria Bartiromo.
The Fox article was also significant for highlighting how the tragic case of Lindsay Clancy is being exploited by the hard right to justify misogyny. Clancy killed three of her children in 2023. Her legal defense was that she suffered from postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder. Eleven jurors voted to acquit Clancy based on this argument, but one juror resisted, leading to a mistrial.
Nine of the jurors who voted to acquit—presumably because they thought Clancy deserved pity rather than harsh punishment—were women; the lone holdout was a man. The hard right has seized on these facts to justify arguments that women are incapable of reason. The Fox article quoted a post on X that made a common argument: “The female jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial are speaking out about their deliberations and disagreements with the sole male holdout. The more they speak the better they make the case for repealing the 19th Amendment.”
A mentally ill woman kills her kids, so women shouldn’t be able to vote?
What happens when a mentally ill man shoots a bunch of random people?
What happens when a mentally ill man shoots a bunch of random people?
Thoughts and prayers.
Tragic lone wolf, nothing can be done
Something something bad apple
I mean just go to the Notable Familicides section and observe the extraordinary amount of men and few women perpetrators.
I literally got banned from a very popular community for pointing this out once.
Apparently it’s misandrist to acknowledge simple facts.
The simple fact is that men disproportionately commit violent crimes, and it’s heavily tied to patriarchy enabling it.
I mean just look at how many people on that list are of a society and/or religion that enforces strict patriarchal rule of society and family.
Men in these environments are taught from childhood that they’re supposed to keep all members of their family under their thumb, and anything less makes them a fundamental failure of a man. So they abandon anything even remotely resembling empathy towards women and children to protect their own egos and status. Thus, violence becomes acceptable to enforce domination, in their minds.
You don’t have this in nearly the same capacity with women in any society or religion. It wasn’t even what happened in this case of murder.
It would seem facts don’t have a place right now. Can’t last too long. Ignoring reality has never worked out for long.
Unfortunately, trying to survive under insane regimes can be quite the trick.
Wouldn’t https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide be a more relevant link?
A 1999 U.S. Department of Justice study concluded that mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancybetween 1976 and 1997 in the United States, while fathers were more likely to have been responsible for the murders of children aged eight or older.[1] Parents were responsible for 61% of child murders under the age of five.[2]Sometimes, there is a combination of murder and suicide in filicide cases. On average, according to FBI statistics, 450 children are murdered by their parents each year in the United States.[3]
An in-depth longitudinal study of 297 cases convicted of filicide and 45 of filicide-suicide in the United Kingdom between 1997 and 2006 showed that 37% of the perpetrators had a recorded mental illness at the time. The most common diagnoses were mood disorders and personality disorders rather than psychosis, but the latter accounted for 15% of cases. However – similar to findings in a large Danish study – the majority had not had contact with mental health services prior to the murders, and few had received treatment. Female perpetrators were more likely to have given birth as teenagers. Fathers were more likely to have been convicted of violent offences and have a history of substance misuse, and were more likely to kill multiple victims. Infants were more likely to be victims than older children, and a link to post-partum depression was suggested.[4]
Edit: Literally just quoted from the link to pull it into the discussion.
I wonder how much of that infant statistic is mistakes that resulted in a murder conviction
They give the officer a promotion.
Hey, stop making this political! /s
Conservatism is about unequality. For them it’s just “nature” to collectively punish all people belonging to a given group that are less powerful.
If you’re part of a more powerful group, all your grievances with a group are automatically justified. If not, even if they were justified, you have to show the moral high ground by not acting out on them.
They give him a badge /satire
Most of them are completely opposed to voting. They are trying to exclude only a portion of the current electorate, as it is more difficult to convince a significant part of the population to support the total abolition of elections.
If it’s ine if them it’s a fluke, a bad apple or caused by one of the others. If it’s anyone else it means all of everyone else is just as bad.
How anyone, especially here, doesn’t know that’s how they think makes no sense.
It’s coming from a mentally ill white woman killing her kids and then being found not guilty.
While people assume that, perhaps, a mentally ill black man that kills his kids is sent to the chair.
If you say that “women experiencing severe post partum depression can’t be held liable for their actions but a man experiencing a mental break can”, then a double standard exists.
This double standard is being used by conservatives to support their broader goal of disenfranchising a democratic leaning voter block.
However, and I can’t stress it enough, this double standard DOES NOT EXIST. There are a number of cases in which men experiencing a mental break have murdered children, and then been found not guilty by reason of insanity.
I will say this though… Men across the nation have never grouped up together to raise money for a mentally unwell man that killed children. That’s some weird ass shit, and perhaps why people are reacting so much to this lindsey clancy case. Women that go out of their way to support a child killer are… let’s just call them weird. Cuz that’s some weird ass shit. Ladies… stop it. Y’all fuckin around, gonna get the 19th amendment revoked… Stop it.
Without looking into this. I would guess the bigger thing MAGA is leaning in is all the support Lindsay is getting. Women are posting TikToks holding their own babies with the title “Same Lindsay.” It’s a lot like the defund the police thing. It doesn’t matter what your actual message is, the way it’s being conveyed is way too easy to miss represent.
Aren’t those TikTok’s expressing solidarity in that they have also struggled with postpartum depression with little help or understanding? The interpretation that those women are suggesting they want to kill their children seems like a disingenuous one.
Yes, but that’s the point of the last part of my statement. It doesn’t matter what the actual message was or is. The way it was conveyed was way to easily misunderstood and was an obvious target.
was way to easily misunderstood
Misunderstood by you. I understood their point and I didn’t even watch any of their TikToks.
Not me. Others. I’m not speaking from my own point of view, I’m speaking based off of how I’ve seen others react. I understand their message, but I also understand it’s a terrible way to convey it.
I’d be concerned about someone who made a “Same Lindsay” social media post. I would not generalize it to her whole gender.
Yeah, I agree with that. That’s the logical thing to think. But you know MAGA isn’t based in logic.
Without looking into this…
And that’s the part where you set the phone down and fuck off.
Same thing that happens every day when a mental man kills. Either shoot self, shot by cop, or mysteriously dies in custody.
Rarely do the mass murder men make it to trial.
Oh I feel bad for laughing so hard at this
I wouldn’t say that
deleted by creator
“All the women are telling us we’re wrong. We should probably take their voices away.”
Typical fucking conservative logic. I hate these people
Also they missed the much more obvious conclusion: the lone holdout juror was a man with no evidence, no logic, and all emotion. Shouldn’t we take away men’s voting rights instead? /s
This unfortunately, I’m sick and tired of chudservatives
Nine of the jurors who voted to acquit—presumably because they thought Clancy deserved pity
I don’t think this is why they voted to acquit. It was cause she knew there was a problem and was reaching out and doing all the right things and nobody was helping her.
This was an entirely avoidable case in a country where we care about mental health.
It is absolutely not lol I watched until the prosecution rested, it’s because the Massachusetts law is that the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was sane at and during the incident, for a person who had been to a psychiatric hospital multiple times and was on trazadone, an ssri, and was hardly sleeping and wrote in her diary she was having hallucinations. Even if you think she was sane at the time that alone is enough for reasonable doubt.
She got mental health care and I would argue with one doctor pretty good care, but US mental health care just sucks. I would also say it’s still her fault for not leaving when she started going downhill (and told her mom she had thoughts of hurting the kids), and because I think it was more of a murder-suicide than psychosis. It’s your responsibility to leave at that point if you feel like you might be a danger to people around you.
the Massachusetts law is that the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was sane at and during the incident
How does this not prevent the prosecution of all crimes? How could you ever prove that about anyone, ever?
Well it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, and most don’t plead insanity because most people won’t believe “oh he went insane so he robbed a bank” unless they have a reason to. This lady was going downhill for months.
deleted by creator
I didnt really follow the case. How was she turned down or how did it happen that help was refused?
Like were her doctors complete asshats or what exactly happened? It doesnt help that there were already two kids, like was her husband having her constantly pump out kids? Was there any discussion about constant
It really is the best to have to live in a society where people who say this shit aren’t only tolerated, but provided with platforms (and sometimes straight cash from far right lunatics) to push it.
Especially when I’m old enough to remember when this was decidedly not the case. I remember what it was like, and I’m fucking furious that they took it away from us.
Our society has been poisoned.
Especially when I’m old enough to remember when this was decidedly not the case.
It was only a decade ago!!!
Same. It’s so sad.
That seems like political suicide. Either no one votes for your insanely shitty platform or idiots do and then you have a revolution. Because we’re not going back, hard stop.
People said the same thing about abortion, and yet here we are
Yup. Barely a peep when it happened.
Gestures at the last twelve years
From everything they’re doing it doesn’t look like they ever want to have a fair vote.
They’re banking on AI surveillance being able to hold back the masses.
You are arguing that voting still matters to them.
They will steal the next election, the question is if democrats are going to make it difficult for them, or if they are going to mostly ignore it like Jan6
They could just say they don’t want women to vote because they tend to be more empathetic and compassionate and therefore vote against conservatives. Just tell the fucking truth for once.
I didn’t think they trouble themselves with the truth very often.
Lol, but the conservative voter base believe their wives are subservient and will vote the same as the husband. Head of the household and alk that. Heaven forbid women have minds of their own!
/s for the treacle like wits amongst us
Never mind the weekly family
annihilators who are not women and who never make the news. Same with any other issue about women. They don’t actually care unless they can exploit it to harm us while pretending otherwise.bad thing: 😐
bad thing, woman: well clearly this says a lot about women as a whole and they get a pass for everything and…
The Lindsay Clancy case did generate some genuinely disturbing online rhetoric. There are, in fact, fringe conservative and MAGA-adjacent accounts calling for the repeal of the 19th Amendment, and there is even a petition explicitly connecting the Clancy case to a demand to repeal women’s suffrage. That part is real.
But that is very different from saying “MAGA is exploiting the Lindsay Clancy case to try to end women’s right to vote.” There is no evidence that the MAGA movement, the Republican Party, Congress, or any serious political organization is pursuing repeal of the 19th Amendment because of this case. What exists is a fringe online reaction that has been amplified because it is outrageous.
The actual court case has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s voting rights. It was a criminal trial concerning whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children. The jury ultimately deadlocked 11–1 and the judge declared a mistrial.
And frankly, I think the lone holdout juror deserves some credit for doing exactly what a juror is supposed to do: make his own judgment rather than surrender his position simply because eleven other people disagreed with him. Whether his interpretation of the evidence and reasonable-doubt standard was correct is a legitimate question. But unanimity exists precisely because one juror is allowed to disagree. The defense even attempted to have the juror removed, and the judge declined to do so.
That’s not “MAGA ending women’s voting rights.” That’s the jury system functioning as designed, even if the result is frustrating.
The Nation is taking a real but extremely fringe online phenomenon and presenting it in its headline as though it represents an organized political effort to abolish women’s suffrage. That is sensationalism, and it is dangerously close to misinformation because the headline encourages readers to infer a political movement that the evidence does not establish.
There is certainly room to criticize people who genuinely advocate repealing the 19th Amendment. I would criticize that position myself. But we should not turn a handful of inflammatory social-media accounts into “MAGA is trying to end women’s right to vote.”
And if this is a moderated community, this is exactly where better moderation matters. A provocative political claim can be discussed, but the title should accurately describe what the linked article actually establishes. “Fringe MAGA-adjacent activists are calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment following the Clancy mistrial” would be a defensible description. “MAGA is exploiting the case to end women’s right to vote” is a much broader claim that the evidence simply does not support.
Disclaimer: Nothing in my comment should be interpreted as support for MAGA, the political right, conservatism, or any effort whatsoever to repeal the 19th Amendment or restrict women’s rights. I oppose those positions. My objection here is specifically to sensationalized and misleading claims that take fringe rhetoric and present it as an established political movement. I support equal rights and the fundamental human rights afforded to people regardless of sex, race, religion, political affiliation, or any other personal characteristic. Fact-checking exaggerated claims is not an endorsement of the people or ideology being discussed. It is simply an insistence that political arguments be based on what the evidence actually demonstrates.
Those supposed fringe online reactions are being platformed on Fox News. It’s being put into mainstream discourse.
I have seen a significantly larger amount of discourse against women’s rights with this case than just a few fringe extremist accounts.
I mean yes… But the conjecture aside the fact stand on their own merits.
Wow, nuance!
These are the people driving the buzz. Just random people, with really only a subset of people agreeing with either.
Ya! Nuance!
You’re taking evidence of a fringe movement and presenting it as evidence of a widespread Republican Party movement. Those are two very different claims.
Yes, there are fringe activists currently calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment, and one of them apparently showed up outside the Lindsay Clancy courthouse with a “Repeal the 19th” sign. That establishes that these people exist. It does not establish that this is a widespread movement within the Republican Party, much less that the Republican Party is pursuing repeal as a political objective. Current reporting actually describes the people pushing this as fringe activists.
There’s also a rather enormous constitutional hurdle you’re overlooking. The 19th Amendment cannot simply be repealed through ordinary legislation, executive action, or a presidential order. Under Article V, repealing it would require another constitutional amendment. That means either two-thirds of both chambers of Congress must propose one, or two-thirds of the states must call a convention to propose one. Then three-fourths of the states, currently 38, would have to ratify it.
So I’m not claiming nobody has ever suggested repealing the 19th Amendment. They clearly have. I’m saying that extrapolating from a handful of fringe activists and an isolated courthouse protest to “the Republican Party wants to repeal women’s right to vote” is not supported by the evidence. If you have evidence of an organized Republican campaign, Republican Party platform, congressional proposal, or state-level movement actually pursuing repeal, that’s a substantially different claim and I’d be interested in seeing it.
And now, for the not so nice part.
You are doing the exact thing I am arguing against: presenting out-of-context pictures as though they somehow validate a conclusion you had already reached. You aren’t examining the evidence and then reaching a conclusion; you’re working backward from the conclusion and selectively presenting whatever you think supports it. This kind of reasoning, and the way people manipulate information to fit an existing narrative, is precisely the sort of behavior that contributes to the political environment we are living in today.
And this isn’t some new phenomenon. There have been people throughout human history who were absolutely convinced they knew better than everyone else while demonstrating very little ability to distinguish evidence from confirmation bias. You don’t become intellectually or morally superior simply because you’ve found a group of people you consider stupid. If anything, you’re demonstrating the exact same intellectual weakness from the opposite direction.
People are allowed to be idiots. That doesn’t make their idiocy representative of an entire political movement, and it certainly doesn’t make selectively presenting their behavior as evidence of a broader movement intellectually honest. If your argument depends on taking the most extreme people you can find and pretending they represent everyone else, then the problem isn’t the people you’re pointing at. It’s the methodology you’re using to make your point.
I’m not validating these positions by sharing the images. My point is that a lot of “news” is just this:
Well in that case I completely agree with you.
They are throwing everything they can at the wall to see what sticks so they can destroy whats left of the US government and start their long wished for civil war. They want a monarchy, and they have the US militarys backing to get it.
I hate how people keep emphasizing “the one holdout was male!!!”. The other two men in the jury voted with the women. I get that there’s a lot of theories about how and why gender matters in this case, but the gender of the one holdout is really a meaningless piece of information. If gender had nothing to do with it, there would still be a 50/50 chance of the one holdout being a man.
Sure but I’m sure if a man kills his wife and children they invite him to join.
And they wonder why women are increasingly becoming adverse to dating them.
First you talk about the crazy idea in a way that slowly normalizes it.
Then you start talking about it in a way that sounds to have balanced reasons on both sides.
Then you start supporting it, more and more, until you’re actively calling for it to happen.
Then your team implements the idea, clearly to the support of millions of citizens.
I’m sure the problem is 100 times worse if you flip the genders
This is such a dumb and obvious distraction. The only time an amendment has been repealed in 250 years of the USA is prohibition. You need 2/3 AND 75% of all states to ratify it, which is 38 of 50. Currently there are 15 “always blue” states (in recent years). Even then, all democrats will vote against it, and we’ve never had a supermajority of both the house and senate in the last 120 years and likely never will. The last time it came close was in 1930 with only 62% GOP.
This is just distracting the democrats while republicans are activity doing worse shit that is happening instead of “thinking about happening”. We need to stay vigilant on what’s possible and happening and what is a distraction and never happening.
They’re slowly eroding women’s rights. I was told to my face that Roe v Wade was never going to be overturned, that it was a distraction, that I was overreacting.
Maybe they won’t be able to strip women’s right to vote, but they’re doing everything they can to do so and they’ll be able to take some of our rights away in the interim. As a compromise.
