Skip to playerSkip to main content
No matter how a case involving maternal crisis unfolds, the reaction online follows the exact same script. If a verdict leans toward conviction, the comments demand retribution. If it leans toward acquittal, the same spaces claim the system failed.

And when women ask for better mental health resources for mothers and children, the response is met with bad-faith arguments and harassment. The recent mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case highlighted this dynamic.

While headline-driven commentary ignored crucial medical facts—like severe cranial trauma and clear fluid leaking from her nose upon EMS arrival—eleven jurors recognized that physical shock and acute psychosis eliminate the burden of proof for premeditated intent.

Yet, a single holdout forced a mistrial. We need to talk about why public spaces make discussing maternal health and systemic medical failures an uphill battle.

Listen to the full breakdown on Substack! #MaternalMentalHealth #PostpartumPsychosis #LindsayClancy #HealthcareSystem #womeninmedia
Transcript
00:00It is an intentional chilling effect designed to shut down conversations about postpartum psychosis, the systemic failures of maternal health
00:07care, and the terrifying reality of what happens when mothers in crisis receive zero institutional support.
00:15As long as online spaces are dominated by hostile, bad-faith actors looking to score points rather than examine facts,
00:22having honest, life-saving conversations about maternal and child well-being will remain an uphill battle.
00:29And I just want to take a chance to kind of elaborate a little bit more here on the amount
00:38of femicide that is actually orchestrated by white men between the ages of 25 and 50.
00:48And as somebody who does true crime researching and reporting, I...
00:52I...
00:52I...
00:53I...
00:54I...
00:54I...
00:55I...
00:55I...

Recommended