Michael Desronvil said he viewed the strangling deaths of her three young children as a methodical act he described as an “execution,” backed by substantial evidence supporting murder convictions.

Michael Desronvil told Fox News in his first televised interview that he had “a lot of evidence” when he refused to join the other 11 jurors who concluded Clancy was not criminally responsible due to mental health issues. The trial ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4 after the 11-1 split.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“That was really big for me, you know, from watching the video and also listening in the courtroom,” Desronvil said. “The thought process that goes behind… to fulfill the commitment of doing that.”

Clancy is charged with strangling Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, with exercise bands at the family’s Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023.

Prosecutors said she ordered food and sent her husband, Patrick Clancy, to pick it up and stop at a pharmacy; GPS data and surveillance footage showed he was gone when the children were killed. At trial, the defense did not dispute that Clancy was the person who killed them.

Desronvil, who has a 5-year-old daughter, said the children’s faces stayed with him.

“So seeing these three kids, it’s emotional. You can see the innocence, the pure joy in them. It’s hard to just take that away.” He has called them “the three angels” and said public attention should focus on them rather than on him.

He also described Patrick Clancy’s 911 call: “Hearing the pain in his voice, hearing the desperation from that clip — it was surreal.”

Desronvil denied later claims from other jurors that he harbored reasonable doubts about the prosecution’s case.

“I had a lot of evidence to back up my claim,” he said. “But because out of respect of the other jurors in the court system, I will put that to sleep for now until, you know, they go through the process.”

On Oct. 1, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan denied a defense motion for a required finding of not guilty. Sullivan wrote that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, “was sufficient to have satisfied any rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt as to the essential element of the defendant’s criminal responsibility.”

Prosecution experts concluded Clancy did not lack substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law. Defense experts differed; the judge noted that jurors may give such testimony little or no weight.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has labeled Desronvil an “obstructionist” and sought an inquiry into him. After the mistrial, Reddington also argued that a flawed police investigation left prosecutors short of proof that Clancy strangled the children—an argument that contrasted with the defense’s position at trial.

Postpartum mental illness is real, but a person can be mentally ill and still criminally responsible. Mental illness does not change that three children were killed in the home where they were supposed to be safest. They will never grow up. The children cannot speak in the courtroom. Dismissing the charges would leave the taking of their lives without a completed finding of criminal responsibility.

Pro-life writers have called that reaction a moral inversion: compassion for a mother who killed her children, with far less public focus on Cora, Dawson and Callan themselves.

Journalist Caitlin Flanagan wrote that “what began as admirable compassion for a woman who says she was driven by mental illness to commit the world’s greatest form of evil has turned into something strange: an almost exultant, fan-like celebration of Lindsay Clancy.”

Paul Batura of Focus on the Family argued that a culture already trained to treat a child’s death as secondary to a mother’s distress — first in abortion, then in cases like this one — struggles to say plainly that killing children is wrong even when the mother is ill. Postpartum mental illness is real, he wrote, but “an individual can be mentally ill and still criminally responsible.”

Abby Johnson, CEO and founder of And Then There Were None and ProLove Ministries, who herself experienced postpartum psychosis after the birth of one of her children, said the intense identification with Clancy reveals a deeper moral distortion long cultivated by abortion advocacy.

“I am not arguing that compassion for Lindsay is wrong…What concerns me is something different. We have become extraordinarily practiced at looking at a dead child and asking first what his or her mother was going through. And abortion taught us how to do that. For decades, the defense of abortion has depended on shifting the moral center of the story away from the human being who dies and toward the human being experiencing the crisis. The mother’s suffering becomes the justification. But suffering does not make killing good,” Johnson wrote.

Johnson stressed that mental illness may affect legal culpability without changing the moral nature of the act.

“Mental illness may affect a person’s culpability for an act. It does not change the moral nature of the act itself,” she said. “Cora was five years old. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old. Their mother killed them.”

Johnson argued that culture has spent more than 50 years training itself to begin with a mother’s fear, financial stress, lack of support or depression until the child’s humanity nearly disappears—first in abortion and now in cases like this one.

“We can demand better postpartum mental-health care in their names. We can acknowledge that their mother may have been gravely ill. We can pray for Lindsay,” Johnson wrote. “None of that requires us to forget where the greatest irreversible harm occurred. Three children went to bed on January 24, 2023, in the home where they were supposed to be safest. They will never get to grow up.”

Cora, Dawson and Callan cannot be allowed to become peripheral to their own story.

The post Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror: She Killed the Kids in a “Methodical Execution” appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The proposed amendments have prompted an unprecedented effort by Burbidge to raise awareness among Virginia Catholics. Question 1 would expand abortion access throughout pregnancy while undermining parental consent for minors. Question 2 would redefine marriage and enshrine transgender ideology in the state constitution.

“These are tough and challenging days, and these are very unsettling questions we’re voting on,” Burbidge said on the latest episode of his “Walk Humbly” podcast. “But we have the truth, and we have prayer, we have fasting.”

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Catholics Called to Prayer and Fasting

Burbidge has asked Catholics to spend October fasting and praying for the defeat of the two proposed amendments. On Fridays, he asked Catholics to pray the Stations of the Cross and to fast, eating only one full meal and no meat. On Sundays, he asked Catholics to pray the Rosary and fast from social media for at least a few hours, ideally before and after Mass.

On his podcast, Burbidge recalled advice he received as a young seminarian from a priest who encouraged him to pray the Stations of the Cross every Friday.

“Every Friday is a Good Friday, a day that we should step back and remember that the Lord took up his cross, that he suffered and he died for us, and to be united with him in fasting, if that’s possible, but certainly in prayer,” Burbidge said.

An Unprecedented Campaign

Information about the diocese’s Catholics Vote No campaign is present in churches across Northern Virginia. More than 433,000 Catholics live in the Diocese of Arlington, which includes 70 parishes and spans 21 counties.

The campaign represents an unusually intervention by Burbidge in an election. In September, he took the unprecedented step of asking priests throughout the diocese to read a letter at Mass urging Catholics to oppose the amendments. Burbidge previously said it was the first time in his decade as bishop that he had made such a request.

Early voting in Virginia opened Sept. 18. Election Day is Nov. 3.

Burbidge praised priests for embracing the campaign and said Catholics he has encountered while traveling throughout the diocese have responded to his call to action.

“I want to just thank all of our priests who are leading this initiative with such faithfulness, such passion, such dedication,” Burbidge said. “I’m so grateful to the faithful who are telling me they’re embracing this cause to vote, to get others to vote, to pray and to fast.”

‘We Did Everything We Possibly Could’

The bishop said he delivered a similar message when he gathered with priests last Thursday, telling them their responsibility was to make every possible effort regardless of the eventual outcome on Election Day.

“If we’re able to say that throughout this initiative, this campaign, we gave the Lord our very best, we did everything we possibly could to defeat these amendments, then the Lord will be pleased that we gave him our best,” Burbidge said.

“The truth never changes,” he added. “And prayer and fasting are always weapons, armor that we have to confront the evil in our world.”

A ‘Generational Vote’

Burbidge’s latest remarks come a week after Catholics gathered at the Basilica of St. Mary in Alexandria, Virginia, to hear from church leaders about the potential consequences of the two amendments.

“This is a generational vote because of the two amendments that are in front of voters,” said Amy McInerny, director of the diocese’s Respect Life Office. “We do have a moment here where we can rise up and proclaim the gospel of life with our vote.”

At the Alexandria forum, church leaders argued that the amendments could have consequences beyond abortion and marriage, raising concerns involving parental rights, conscience protections, religious institutions, and Virginia’s longstanding tradition of religious freedom.

With less than three weeks remaining before Election Day, Burbidge is urging Catholics to pair political participation with prayer and sacrifice.

“We have the truth, and we have prayer, we have fasting,” Burbidge said. “They’re powerful forces, and we have the grace of God who continues to work miracles.”

LifeNews Note: Rob Bluey is president and executive editor of the Daily Signal, where this column originally appeared.

The post Catholic Bishop Urges No Vote on Abortions Up to Birth in Virginia: “Confront the Evil” appeared first on LifeNews.com.

In a letter obtained by the Daily Signal, Roy asked FDA Acting Commissioner Kyle Diamantas for an update on the publication timeline for the study. If the agency does not act promptly, Roy vows to work to prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to make abortions accessible through the 2023 removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone.

“House Republicans cannot be expected to continue funding the implementation of the January 2023 REMS modifications indefinitely while FDA repeatedly extends its review without committing to corrective action,” the letter reads.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

In 2023, the Biden administration removed the in-person dispensing requirement from the mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, making abortion drugs available by mail. The study began in September 2025 with a promise to be completed by the end of 2026. However, in a new legal filing, the FDA announced the study is on track, but the findings will not be published until March 2027.

Earlier this year, Roy offered an amendment that sought to prohibit federal funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce the FDA’s January 2023 changes to the mifepristone REMS. After discussions with the FDA and the administration, Roy says he withdrew his amendment in good faith based on the understanding that the FDA would complete and publish the mifepristone safety study this fall.

“I did not withdraw my amendment so that FDA could conduct an open-ended review while continuing to administer the Biden Administration’s policy.
FDA’s October 7th filing only reinforces this concern,” the letter continues.

In the letter, Roy asks for four major updates.

Roy wants to know the agency’s actions since he withdrew his amendment to halt abortion funding. He is seeking a status update on the mifepristone and REMS study and an explanation of why the FDA is postponing publication of the results.

Roy is also seeking an explanation of when the agency anticipates making a regulatory decision about the 2023 REMS modifications, whether it intends to reinstate the in-person requirement, and the expected timeline for action.

“Every day FDA delays action is another day this dangerous regulatory regime remains in place, allowing more abortion pills to be distributed by mail and more unborn children to lose their lives,” Roy writes.

“If FDA will not act to reverse those modifications, including reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement, Congress must act. Absent prompt action by the agency, I will seek to include my amendment in the next continuing resolution to prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to implement, administer, or enforce the January 2023 REMS modifications,” the letter concludes.

Roy is seeking a response from the agency no later than Oct. 27. The FDA did not immediately respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

LifeNews Note: Virginia Grace McKinnon writes for Daily Signal, where this column originally appeared.

The post Pro-Life Congressman Slams FDA for Delaying Abortion Pill Study appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Marmoreo’s article fits the general position of the death lobby who have “drank the kool-aid” and view killing people by poison as just another procedure. Marmoreo states:

I was among the first physicians in this country to provide medical assistance in dying when it became legal in 2016. For more than 10 years, I have helped people die with the dignity this country promised them. So I am firm in saying that when Ottawa this week said it planned to bar those whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder from requesting an assisted death, it wasn’t prudence dressed up as caution; it was politically driven cowardice in the face of controversy surrounding an individual’s Charter rights of bodily autonomy.

Click Follow below to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

Marmoreo writes what the death lobby always write, that is to refer to the law as preventing someone from “requesting an assisted death” rather than stating the truth, that the law is preventing a doctor from killing a person, when their sole underlying condition is a mental disorder.

The euthanasia lobby writers use this tactic to change the issue to “freedom of speech” (request) rather than the doctor having the right to kill, which is more controversial.

Marmoreo then refers to killing people, whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder, as being a “Charter” issue. This statement assumes that the Supreme Court of Canada, in Carter, decided that people have the right to be killed, even if their only condition is a mental disorder.

Marmoreo also follows the euthanasia lobby talking point, that killing people whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder will prevent suicide. Marmoreo writes:

I have known too many patients who deteriorated and ended their own lives alone, without safeguards, without support, without the humane and legally supervised option that a person with a physical diagnosis would have been granted without a second thought. Canadians don’t keep statistics on “botched suicides,” but we should.

Suicide is always a tragedy and I understand that the Supreme Court of Canada, in Carter, falsely decided that legalizing assisted death will enable people to live longer because they would not “need” to die by suicide if medical homicide is an option.

But the concept that medical homicide is better than a self-killing is problematic, even with the use of the scare tactic of describing violent suicide deaths.

Finally Marmoreo goes on about how doctors are careful when they kill patients by lethal poison. Marmoreo then states:

I have watched hundreds of good deaths, enough to know that one delivered at the patient’s request, after careful and rigorous assessment, is not an act of harm, but of mercy.

Even if it would only result in “one” death delivered at the “patient’s request” it would still constitute an act whereby a doctor or nurse practitioner kills a person based on a “irremediable” medical condition. Should doctors and nurse practitioners ever have the right to kill people?

Further to that, how can Marmoreo, who is not a psychiatrist, assume that the person who is killed actually had an irremediable medical condition? Leading psychiatrists across Canada have stated that it is impossible to determine if a person’s mental disorder is irremediable.

Treatment and care for people with suicidal ideation and mental health conditions is compassionate. Killing is not compassionate.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

The post Canadian “Death Doctor” Wants to Euthanize Mentally Ill People appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Ossoff is seeking reelection to the U.S. Senate, where he faces Republican nominee and current U.S. Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), setting up a closely watched Senate race in which abortion policy remains a central campaign issue. The demonstration is also part of Students for Life Action’s ongoing “Democrats Love Late-Term Abortion” campaign, which highlights Democratic candidates’ positions and legislative records on abortion.

The event is scheduled for 7 PM (doors open at 6 PM) at an undisclosed location in Cobb County, GA. SFLA students will be standing by ready to head to the location as soon as it’s announced. Ossoff is seeking a second term in the U.S. Senate, while Bottoms, the former mayor of Atlanta, is running for governor.

Ossoff and Bottoms have campaigned together throughout the 2026 general election campaign, including a joint Atlanta rally earlier this year.

Click Follow below to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

ABORTION POLICY IS PART OF THE CANDIDATES’ RECORDS

• Ossoff — voted against protections for abortion survivors: Ossoff voted against advancing the Born-Alive “Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” an extreme position even beyond the underlying abortion debate.

• Ossoff — wants federal abortion protections: He supports federal legislation protecting abortion access and has repeatedly attacked Georgia’s six-week pro-life law, potentially overriding protections enacted by Georgia voters’ representatives.

• Ossoff — using Senate power against Georgia’s pro-life law: He has used his Senate investigative authority and hearings to build a case against Georgia’s abortion restrictions, something critics can frame as a U.S. senator working to undermine his own state’s pro-life protections.

• Ossoff — was endorsed for reelection in March by Reproductive Freedom for All, which cited his Senate record on abortion policy, contraception, and IVF.

• Collins — strong rhetoric, but what will he actually do federally? Collins says he has “always been and always will be 100% pro-life,” supports Georgia’s six-week law and opposes federal abortion funding.

• Collins — the “no exceptions” claim: Collins previously described himself as pro-life “period — no exceptions,” while supporting Georgia’s law, which contains rape, incest and life-of-the-mother exceptions.

• Bottoms:  supports overturning the state’s 2019 LIFE Act, which generally prohibits abortion once embryonic cardiac activity is detectable, typically around six weeks.

• Bottoms: wants to restore Roe v. Wade-era abortion protections.

• Bottoms: targets pregnancy care centers that provide valuable, often free services to women facing unplanned pregnancies.

• Bottoms: received endorsements from pro-abortion organizations. Both EMILY’s List and Reproductive Freedom for All have endorsed her gubernatorial candidacy.

SFLAction is currently asking Georgians to contact Ossoff regarding his opposition to the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” as part of Students for Life Action’s national advocacy concerning protections for infants who survive attempted abortions.

OUR GEORGIA WORK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY

The October 17 rally follows Students for Life Action’s October 11 Atlanta church-flyering effort, part of the broader “Get Out the Pro-Life Vote” campaign.

Earlier this year, SFLAction championed Georgia House Bill 1275, legislation addressing the use of fetal or embryonic tissue derived from abortion in human stem-cell therapy research.

The legislation passed the Georgia Senate 48–0 after previously passing the House 170–0, with the House later concurring in the Senate version.

LEARN MORE ABOUT OSSOFF’S VIEWS HERE: Meet the Dems Who Love Late-Term Abortion

AND HOW YOU CAN JOIN THE FIGHT TO PRESS OSSOFF ON THE “BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT” HERE

The post Jon Ossoff and Keisha Lance Bottoms Support Abortions Up to Birth appeared first on LifeNews.com.

It maps out what they plan to do in their first 100 hours if they take back control of Congress.

And at the top of their list? Abortion.

In their own words, they want to “Reestablish a federal right to abortion care and end restrictions that prevent people covered through federal health programs from receiving abortion coverage.”

In other words, abortion-on-demand nationwide, and you pay for it.

Click Follow below to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

So, I’m sending my students straight to the people who would vote on it.

Very soon, Students for Life Action Rapid Response teams are going to start showing up at Democrat U.S. Senate public events. Every candidate will get the same question:

“Yes or No: will you vote to legalize abortion up until birth, paid for with tax dollars?”

Our first two public events are locked in. TODAY, Wednesday, October 14^th, we’ll be at James Talarico’s town hall in Texas. On Saturday, October 17^th, we’ll be at Jon Ossoff’s rally in Atlanta.

The rest? The campaigns are keeping their schedules under tight wraps. Sometimes we learn where a candidate will be only hours ahead.

That means my teams have to be packed, funded, and ready to roll before we know where they’re going.

The first bill on their abortion list is H.R. 12, the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act. Their memo says it would create a right to abortion nationwide “free from state and local restrictions.”

Think about what that means. Every pro-life law you and your state legislators fought to pass would be gone, wiped out with one vote. Abortion would be legal nationwide right up until birth.

The second bill is H.R. 4611, the EACH Act. The memo outright says it “ends the Hyde Amendment” and makes abortion available “at no cost to the patient” for everyone covered by the federal government. That includes Medicaid, service members, and veterans.

No cost to the mother who kills her baby. So who pays? You do.

And getting their wish list is already in motion. H.R. 12 has already passed the House twice. This Congress, 209 House members signed on as cosponsors.

The House would pass it again in a heartbeat. The U.S. Senate is where it lives or dies.

That’s why we’re targeting key Senate candidates to get them on record.

Take James Talarico. He tells Texas voters, “The Bible is silent on abortion.” He voted against protecting preborn babies once their heartbeats can be heard. And Planned Parenthood Texas Votes endorsed him for it.

Jon Ossoff has already voted for it. In 2022, he voted to move the Women’s Health Protection Act forward on the Senate floor. Thankfully, it failed, 49 to 51. But Planned Parenthood Action Fund has endorsed him for reelection.

Now, he wants Georgia voters to give him six more years and another shot at it.

These candidates will smile through a town hall and never say the words “up until birth.” So we’re going to say them, and ask them to answer.

You’ve already seen what happens when our students show up.

At Baylor University last month, our students stood outside the student center with homemade signs while Talarico campaigned inside. In Michigan, a pro-life student at Western Michigan University stood up at a town hall and asked Abdul El-Sayed a simple question. He answered by calling a pregnant mother “simply a carrying vehicle for a fetus that has not ever breathed air.”

That’s the power of putting a candidate on the record.

Steven, the Abortion Lobby is spending millions to make sure voters never connect these candidates to that memo.

But they can’t control what happens when a college student grabs the mic at a rally and asks a fair question.

And my team is ready. They’ve seen the Abortion Lobby treat our generation as future customers, and they’re done staying quiet. The Pro-Life Generation is going to make every one of these candidates answer before Election Day on Tuesday, November 3^rd.

Democrats put their plan in writing. Let’s make sure every Senate candidate has to say Yes or No to it out loud.

The post Democrats’ 84-Page Plan After Taking Over Congress Includes Abortions Up to Birth appeared first on LifeNews.com.