Mountains Or Molehills?

Are women responsible for their thoughts and actions even when they place themselves in risky situations?

Whitson G. Waldo, III | October 12, 2026

A couple of current events have come to the forefront of our collective social consciousness, and they raise the question of whether they are momentous or merely transient. The first event is the mistrial of Lindsay Clancy. The second is the escapades of the Cornell 7 plus one.

The poles of the Lindsay Clancy affair span from a novel legal theory that postpartum depression can induce a temporary murderous psychosis to the general realization that women can’t control themselves under hormonal fluctuations, and so they can’t be responsible for their thoughts or actions.

Kevin Reddington is the execrable defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy. Like too many of his predecessor attorneys, he has invented a novel legal theory that undermines the rule of law by eviscerating its plain meaning. His theory is that a woman can’t be held criminally responsible for her thoughts and actions because she is a woman under the influence of her hormones. For the sake of a constitutional republic and the rule of law, it is hoped this is a passing legal anomaly. Considering the horror of her crimes, it would perhaps have been closer to the truth for him to have argued she can’t be held responsible because the devil made her do it (with apologies in remembrance of Flip Wilson).

Lindsay Clancy’s actions belie her attorney’s legal theory. She confessed to murdering her three innocent young children. The murders were planned in........

© American Thinker