photo #9364546

If a woman publicly defends Lindsay Clancy as some kind of martyr for postpartum depression, the question is not just whether her politics are broken. The question is whether her moral compass is broken in a way that should worry everyone around her.Three innocent children are dead.They were not abstractions. They were not political props. They were not footnotes in a mental health debate. They were little children who should be alive, protected, loved, and safe.Yet somehow, an ugly little corner of the internet has turned this into a sympathy campaign for the woman accused of taking them from the world.They talk about compassion, trauma, stress, motherhood, pressure, and mental health, but the innocent children almost vanish from the conversation. The outrage gets redirected away from the victims and toward anyone who dares to say, no, killing children is evil.That is not compassion. That is moral rot.Nobody sane denies that postpartum illness is serious. Nobody sane says struggling mothers should be ignored, mocked, or abandoned.But there is a canyon between recognizing mental illness and trying to turn the deaths of three children into a cause, a movement, or some sick form of solidarity.And when people cross that canyon, yes, it becomes fair to ask what they believe about the children in their own homes.If you look at this case and your instinct is to defend the adult, excuse the act, and bury the victims under slogans, then something has gone terribly wrong.We used to understand that some lines cannot be crossed.Now the activist class sees a line and looks for a hashtag to defend crossing it.At some point, society has to stop pretending this is empathy. It is not.It is a dangerous collapse of basic moral judgment.