Enough Already: A Response to the Clancy Case, Part 2

Standing Alone

Travel back with me nearly 20 years ago. I’m working in education and have been asked to serve on a panel whose sole purpose is to hear and evaluate a twelfth grader’s senior project. The task is designed to be the culmination of this student’s educational experience. She must pass this hurdle in order to graduate.

She’s supposed to showcase her knowledge of a particular topic of her choosing. She’s expected to conduct herself professionally and demonstrate in depth familiarity with the topic at hand.

The young lady does none of those things.

It becomes obvious within the first few minutes that this presenter doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Sure, she’s nervous; who wouldn’t be? But there are criteria for her to meet, and she doesn’t hit any of them.

It comes time to make an assessment. The student’s instructors have provided guidelines for us to follow. I render my judgment accordingly and deliver a failing grade.

I immediately come under pressure from the other members.

“She has special needs! She has a tough home life! She was terrified to speak publicly!”

On and on the excuses go.

Granted, the student in question does have an IEP (individualized education plan), but the panel has not been instructed to offer any special accommodation due to this fact. If we had been, I would have taken that into consideration.

I hold my ground politely but firmly. I refer back to the written rubric in front of us. I reiterate time and again the ways in which the student didn’t measure up.

The pressure continues. When it becomes clear that I’m not going to change my opinion, everyone decides to break and resume discussion after lunch.

Except it turns out my services are no longer needed after the break. Another educator has been found to fill my position. This staff member rubber stamps the kid’s project so she can satisfy the course requirements.

It’s important to note that the student would almost certainly have graduated with or without my passing her. The only result of failing her first attempt would have been a redo. Much like when I failed my first driver’s test and had to try again.

Yes, I cried when the instructor flunked me. Yes, I had excuses why I screwed up the three-point-turn and didn’t stop all the way at the stop sign. Bottom line: the guy assessing me wasn’t concerned with the reasons for my mistakes. He was charged with delivering a safe driver onto the highway, and I didn’t make the cut.

You’d better believe I nailed those two things next time, and nobody rejoiced more than I did when I got my license on the second try.

I keep flashing back to these memories as I watch the aftermath of the Lindsay Clancy trial. Eleven jurors vote to acquit her; one man stands alone, holding her accountable for her lethal actions. The judge declares a mistrial. The defense attorney plays every card he has: he requests dismissal of the dissenting juror; files an emergency petition with the Supreme Judicial Court; suggests a retrial would constitute double jeopardy; even begs the President of the United States to try to influence the prosecuting attorneys.

Simultaneously, a little thing called juror privacy is on the chopping block. The dissenter’s personal information has been leaked, his reputation called into question, and his family harassed, in what his attorney is calling “a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution.” The man has gone into hiding.

If such strongarm tactics aren’t squashed, we’ll have even more trouble populating juries than we do already, and the trial system as we know it will collapse.

Enough already.

Big Picture

Clearly, there are larger issues at stake than the fate of a confessed triple murderer.

To illustrate, remember the ending of Casablanca? Spoiler alert: Bogie doesn’t get the girl. He sends her packing, literally, back into the arms of her husband. Why? Not because he doesn’t love her. Not because he believes in the sanctity of marriage. His sole reason for sacrificing his great passion is because bigger forces are at play, and they’ll be tipped in the wrong direction if he thinks only of himself.

We could use a bit of that philosophy right about now.

I’ve tried hard to remain objective during the Lindsay Clancy trial. I detailed in part one of this series the difficulty I encountered in trying to formulate my opinion about this horrendous case. Like so many situations, this one is multifaceted and extremely complex.

It’s also heart wrenching.

After studying the facts and the footage pretty meticulously, I’ve finally arrived at the verdict I would have rendered if I were sitting on that jury:

Clancy should be found guilty and held responsible for murdering her children.

The reasons ought to be obvious. Three preschoolers were slaughtered by their mother, who claims a previously non-existent voice told her to do it and then went silent, never to be heard from again.

Misplaced Sympathy

Several jurors who served in the trial gave interviews after the judge declared a mistrial. Their primary goals seem to be a) excusing Lindsay and b) attacking the one juror who refused to vote for acquittal. One actually whined that the lone holdout “had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”

Um, yeah. Details like that used to matter in murder trials. Call me crazy, but justice for victims used to carry as much weight as murderers’ mental health. Go figure.

The aforementioned juror bemoaned the fact that the holdout stood his ground and insisted Lindsay be convicted. She railed that he should “forgetting [sic] about Lindsay killing her kids. Everybody knows it. The world knows it. But look at the doubt. That’s all we need to do to get this woman the help she deserves.” Her final word was, “I will support Lindsay to the end here.”

Apparently, we’ve evolved as a society. We no longer dwell on minutiae like children’s brains swelling and blood vessels bursting while their mothers choke the life out of them. In fact, the jurors who wanted to acquit Clancy complained that the prosecutors spent an overabundance of time on the grotesque details of the children’s deaths.

There’s empathy in action. Let’s not dwell on minor points like an eight-month-old’s “brain [swelling] to the point that it had ‘overwhelmed the capacity of the skull’ and was herniating through its base.” Or blood vessels rupturing from the pressure of those exercise bands, causing pain along with asphyxiation. Or the agony baby Callan likely felt while emergency staff taped needles and tubes and catheters onto his fragile skin to try to save him. His siblings had already mercifully died when doctors inserted intraosseous catheters into the bones of their little legs, but Lindsay’s youngest was still alive when that needle or drill pierced his tiny tibia. The medical examiner testified that doctors “attempted” this painful procedure on Callan. Maybe they tried more than once without success. Maybe it wasn’t having the desired effect, so they removed it. Who knows? What we do know is his little body was poked and prodded and punctured ad nauseam, to no avail.

But why pore over incidentals like the anguish an infant suffers when heroes fight to save the life his mom tried to extinguish? Those particulars should be glossed over so jurors can more quickly attend to the pressing need to acquit.

Remember, we’re here to support Lindsay.

I could have stomached watching the jurors opine about Clancy’s troubled state of mind if they’d given equal time to her dead children. That, apparently, was too much to ask. The overarching concern was and is the wellbeing of a woman who murdered her own babies.  

Societal Rot

Why do I get the feeling we’re entering into Hunger Games territory if we don’t watch our step? Seriously. Are we all that far from there? We have now reached a lower point in our collective thinking than I would have thought possible. We seem willing to throw children to the wolves even – maybe especially –   when those wolves are dressed in their mothers’ clothing.

Take, for example, the hundreds of women who supported Clancy throughout the trial. Go a step further and consider the moms who recorded themselves saying and doing outrageous things to vent their frustration at having to care for young children. My usual M.O. is to insert copious links to verify facts and assertions I make in articles, as I’ve done above. I’m deliberately not doing so here. Those videos are best relegated to the dustbin, unless attorneys retrieve them to prosecute women who make terrible choices.

Age-Old Problems

We’re acting as if mothering were something new. As if legions of women haven’t been doing it since time immemorial. I can get behind the viewpoint that women’s lives have become exponentially harder since society started demanding they be supermoms who bring home the bacon while raising children. I did it and can attest to how hard it is. I can agree that maybe we’ve so skewed the differences between men and women that neither sex has any idea how to behave, and that this blurring of role distinctions can cause confusion and even chaos, both of which may be exacerbated in the aftermath of childbirth.

However, I refuse to dismiss the murder of innocent children as a mere facet of mental illness and call it a day.

Zooming Out

Again, I’m having a bear of a time being objective here. The more I learn about the case, the harder it is not to feel tremendous rage for Cora, Dawson and Callan, while simultaneously experiencing great sadness for their tortured mother. But my own mother’s words echo in my ears. She used to say people who sit on the fence never really take a position; it’s better to pick a side and live with it. Reminds me of the rebuke Jesus gave the Laodicean church in Revelation 3:15: “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!  So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

I must choose a position, and that must be justice for Lindsay Clancy’s children. Because this case matters so much more than what happens to one woman. Whether the 11 jurors who voted for acquittal realize it or not, they’re wielding a wrecking ball – and rather recklessly, in my opinion – against generations of maternal love and protection. Why? Because ultimately, acquitting Clancy will lead to the defensibility of women murdering their children based on hormonal imbalance. 

For example, another juror essentially declared the majority of the panel had an agenda. She then conflated justice for the children with an overhaul of the mental health system serving postpartum women.

Truth really is stranger than fiction.

I’ve spent a grueling amount of hours dissecting the testimony from this sordid case, and one thing that keeps showing up is the expectations and responsibilities placed on jurors, whose job description DOES NOT INCLUDE impacting institutional change. Once the jury veers off into trying to effect outcome for a certain issue, trying to make its mark, as it were – that body has corrupted its one and only function: to consider evidence and make a ruling based on facts.

Besides which, there really is substance to the argument that women can’t have it both ways. Either they can power through hormonal fluctuations or they can’t. It’s one thing to feel lousy, physically and/or mentally, during the hormonal instability associated with PMS, pregnancy, the postpartum window; it’s another thing to act out those feelings in homicidal ways.

I’m not saying anything new here. Many pundits are raising these same alarms because we must wrestle with the repercussions. There’s no getting around them. Either women can be trusted in consequential positions – such as raising the next generation – or they can’t. But it doesn’t make sense to demand equality in the public square, with all the attendant privileges, and then turn around and excuse horrific behavior because hormones are acting up.

More than Enough

I once heard a convicted sex offender state that porn addiction requires constantly new and different stimuli to feed itself. Perhaps we can apply that concept here. Somewhere along the line, people began overemphasizing milestones and celebrating them way out of proportion. Think of the lavish bridal and baby showers we throw these days. Bar and bat mitzvahs that rival weddings, complete with DJ’s, photo booths, chocolate fountains. “Push presents” moms expect in return for giving birth (call me old fashioned, but we used to think the baby itself was the gift). And don’t get me started on kids’ birthday parties, which have gotten staggeringly excessive and expensive.

Enough already.

When we become conditioned to constantly expect bigger and better adventures, it becomes difficult to live in the day-to-day, blasé happenings of life. Not to mention living with the demand to constantly outdo ourselves for every life event.

Perhaps this is part of what happened to Lindsay. She had reached a point where many of her goals had been met. Successful career – check. Marriage to an upwardly mobile guy – check. Three healthy children - check. But when one is always looking for the next captivating experience, it becomes hard to count blessings and realize that this is all there is, and that all there is, is very good.

I know that’s an awkward sentence, so let me illustrate. When my first child was born, my dreams came true. I’ve shared elsewhere that my pregnancy journey wasn’t a cake walk, so giving birth to that little guy with the conehead and scrunched-up face was the culmination of all my hopes. So, guess what I asked when all was said and done?

“Is this all there is?”

The reality didn’t live up to the dream I’d conceived. Besides that, my marriage was teetering on disaster when we became parents. Those disappointments had to be managed before I could appreciate that life could still be very, very good, despite its not meeting my unrealistic expectations.

Things started coming into focus the night I brought my newborn into a support group meeting. I’m sure I was crying over the state of my life and marriage. A wise lady in the room wasn’t having it. She pointed to my little chickee-head (that’s what I called him because, after a bath, his hair stood up like a baby chick’s fur), smiled, and said, “But look what you got.”

So, I did. I looked at that funny little face and realized what I had was very, very good and more than enough. Hard times were ahead, without a doubt, but good times and hard times can and often do coexist.

Another pivotal moment occurred when my kids were much older. My neighbor, Anita, and I were cleaning up after dinner one night. Anita had prepared a feast for us in her tomato-red kitchen, and she and I were scrubbing dishes while the boys tossed a ball around in her backyard. Something about the homespun image of two young guys playing catch while the womenfolk chatted over dishwashing (OK, that’s not politically correct – so sue me) brought a tear to my eye. All I could think of was a song that has come to epitomize my view of life: I Could Not Ask for More. I later danced to that sappy tune at both my sons’ weddings, and it will be played at my funeral.

The Bible expressed this concept long before songwriter Diane Warren did. Listen to the apostle Paul wax eloquent about contentment:

^“But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.” (1 Timothy 6:6-8)

My pastor preached on these verses last week and this week, emphasizing the importance of finding contentment in the content of our lives. He showed the connection between being content (satisfied) with the content (stuff) that makes up our existence. I think this message should be trumpeted from pulpits far and wide. This simple principle has the potential to save so many from falling prey to the materialism and overdoing that characterizes our age.

Blame Shifting

I can think of one other reason to make our greatest goal to intentionally live in a state of contentment. It goes hand in hand with responsibility.

We’ve seen a cascade of blame shifting in the Clancy case. It’s Patrick’s fault. It’s the doctors’ fault. It’s the psych hospitals’ fault. Everyone but Lindsay is to blame for her actions.

Let’s agree on some indisputable facts. First, the poor woman clearly was having a breakdown. Her medical team certainly dropped the ball in inexcusable ways. I recall similar treatment – or lack thereof – when a family member went through a mental health crisis. I could tell by the hurried and harried approach of the caseworkers – who really did care – that the scope of their job went far beyond the hours they had in a day. Disappointed and disenchanted people are glutting the system (this brings us back to the error of overdoing milestones and resultant ill-preparedness for life on life’s terms), which makes it dangerously hard for practitioners to keep up.

Sadly, this is the system in which we find ourselves; sometimes we have to find ways to get the most out of the least.

Also, Lindsay’s husband was imperfect (whose isn’t?); maybe he was even unfaithful. Again, I can relate to the trauma of a troubled marriage. I can even relate to terrifying thoughts and the Herculean effort it took to do minor tasks like loading the dishwasher and bathing my kids. Because when the brain goes into overload, nothing is easy.

But, when push came to shove, I held it together enough to keep both myself and my children alive, by God’s grace. I leaned hard on the Lord, my family of origin, and professional help (which, by the way, had definite shortcomings).

I also considered the potential consequences that could occur if I didn’t move heaven and earth to fight looming madness.

In other words, I shouldered as much responsibility as I could, while simultaneously sucking every bit of support out of every avenue available.

Bygone Responsibility

But herein lies another problem. We train people not to accept responsibility for their own actions, and when they mess up, sometimes lethally, they claim victimhood. Bear with me as I relate yet another aha moment.

Towards the end of my career, I worked with a student who was pretty much surgically attached to his laptop. The district wanted to harness the utility of the internet while also saving a few trees, so it issued devices to all students and staff. This particular kid had a dickens of a time putting the thing away when the lesson didn’t require its use. One day I lost patience and called him out into the hall for a lecture.

“Listen, friend, why don’t you close your computer when the teacher tells you to? Why do I have to repeat her instructions five or six times, and you still don’t close the darn thing?”

Noting that my frustration was falling on deaf ears, I decided to switch gears.

“OK, how ’bout this? Let’s talk about why it’s important to do the right thing when you’re told to do it. You know not to cross the street when a car’s coming, right?”

Of course he did.

“OK, so what happens if a car’s coming and you’re strolling out into the street, and you don’t see it? The car honks its horn, but you ignore that warning. What would happen if you did that?”

And here, dear readers, is one of the most chilling statements I’ve ever heard.

Without giving it a thought, the child answered, “The car would stop.”

No, my precious middle schooler! That’s the whole point. The car wouldn’t stop. You would become part of the pavement.

That’s where this kind of thinking takes us.

When people aren’t taught to sift through actions and consequences, we have a real problem. When lack of contentment meets lack of responsibility, a painful collision with reality ensues.

So, let’s return again to the throes of daily life. The house needs work. The car’s on the fritz. The kids are being kids. Illness strikes.

Where’s the confetti?

We’re used to parties and over-the-top festivities at every turn. We’re used to participation awards just for showing up and spelling our names right.

I submit that we need to start celebrating the mundane instead of chasing the electric.

Final Thoughts

Now, back to the topic at hand: Lindsay Clancy.

I don’t normally ask this, but if any of my points are resonating with you, please share this article. We NEED to get this one right. We can’t afford to misjudge this case because the stakes are nothing less than our survival as a nation. We must halt the death train here, at the doorstep of Clancy’s confinement. And that confinement must include prison, not just a mental health facility, where she may convince doctors she’s well enough to return to society.

The Clancy jurors described defense lawyer Reddington’s approach as “funny, entertaining, arrogant, but compassionate.” Perhaps they’d have made similar observations about the attorney who defended Constance Fisher, whose kids might beg to differ with physicians who deemed her sane enough to walk free after spending a few years in a mental institution. Fisher had been committed there after drowning her three children. Upon her release, she proceeded to murder the three other children she subsequently produced with the husband who stood by her.

Folks, let’s learn from history. And let’s look where we’re headed.

If a model mother, as everyone describes Lindsay (and I don’t doubt she was), can brutally slay her own children, who’s above suspicion? We begin to suspect everyone. Someone’s having a bad day with her kids in the grocery store, and we wonder if we should call 911. As a society, we’ve been on the alert for years, what with school shootings and killings in the public square. But the Clancy case is bringing distrust of one’s neighbor to a whole new level.

If we’re going to talk about Lindsay’s sanity, let’s talk about the insanity of a society that doesn’t lock the door and throw away the key on mothers – and fathers, for we’ve been down that road far too many times as well – who kill their offspring.

We must view parent killers’ actions as the anomaly they are – the antithesis of filial love – and resist the urge to paint them as excusable catastrophes resulting from mental illness or malpractice. 

We've discussed why insanity-driven acts should not automatically merit freedom for offenders. Wrong is still wrong, regardless of what propelled it. This is especially true when lives have been snuffed out and a criminal's future actions may put society at risk.

Regarding the malpractice defense, why not litigate those allegations as well as determining guilt or innocence of the defendant? Why not hold psychiatric teams culpable alongside the killers who claim the establishment failed them? If malpractice can be proven, those practitioners will have to pay their dues as well.

But we must not bow to the wishes of Lindsay’s cheerleaders, who want her excused due to medical negligence. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Again, what this all comes down to is having reasonable expectations for life as it truly is. Dirty diapers have always been smelly. Spouses have always been imperfect in the light of day, once the rose-colored glasses are removed.

People used to understand this. They understood that beauty is fleeting, but love can last if true commitment is present. They realized that life is hard, even unfair, and that spouses aren’t there to change this reality, but to simply support one another.

Overblown expectations and unattainable dreams are always going to lead to devastation. A realistic view of life, including what it can’t deliver, needs to be drummed into our children from the moment they can talk.

In part one of this series, I noted that the Lord will sort out truth in the Clancy case; I stand by that. That said, I would add that God expects humans to use the brains he gave them. As I once heard in a women’s conference, if we try and fail, at least we know we tried. If we do nothing, we have only ourselves to blame.

As always, God gets the last word:

“Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. 

For I will not justify the wicked.” 

– Exodus 23:7

Reclaiming the Rainbow

                                                        

Somewhere over the rainbow

Way up high
There's a land that I heard of once in a lullaby

Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true¹

                                             

The Battle Lines

When Judy Garland trilled these classic lines 80 plus years ago, who could have foreseen the battle that would be raging over the rainbow in 2025? The gender movement was yet one of the “unthinkables” that Francis Schaeffer rightly predicted would become a "thinkable" in the future² if good men continued to do nothing. However, over the past two generations, this colorful, streaming banner has become the symbol of LGBTQIA+ pride and endorsement. I find myself in the ludicrous but needful position of having to stake my own claim to the dazzling arc we call the rainbow.

The Basis

As a Christian, I place my faith in almighty God, the veracity of whose Holy Word has been upheld brilliantly by scholars far more learned than I (Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, and Robert C. Walton, among others). Because these astute luminaries have argued ably on the subject, I see no reason to add to their work here. However, acknowledging that many in our secular society scoff at all things Biblical, I leave it to my audience to peruse some of the sources referenced above if they feel the need to sneer at the mention of how the Book of Genesis relates the origin of the rainbow.

The Background

 

Simply put, the rainbow first appears in Genesis 9:8-17, following the account of a world-wide flood (which is largely confirmed by unrelated sources in the ancient world, all offering various "takes" on the deluge, which bolster its credibility).³ The rainbow stands prominently as a promise from God that He will never destroy life on Earth via flood waters again. It is worth noting that He makes no assurances that humankind will not be subject to some other form of deadly judgment in response to disobedience. On the contrary, the Bible does detail catastrophic consequences for wickedness, often in the form of fire. 

But a large contingent of Earth’s occupants today would prefer to think of the creator of the universe – if they give Him any thought at all – as a God of love and acceptance of any and all kinds of belief systems and lifestyles. As such, they find it easy to co-opt and reassign meaning to the band of colors about which Garland sang so poignantly those many years ago.

The Battle Stakes

As a young teen, I received as a gift a glorious, handmade poster from an artistically talented friend. She calligraphed song lyrics from an album track we both loved which, incidentally, expressed in simple terms how a relationship with an all-knowing God transcends human love and understanding. My friend punctuated the poster with the swirling hues of a rainbow.

 

I’m burdened by the fact that that image, which saw me off to sleep on both tranquil and troubled nights, has been hijacked in my mind by a political and ideological maelstrom, none of which is based on science. What is scientifically indisputable and fact-checkable is that, in the wake of the gender movement, women are being harmed and their private spaces and athletic opportunities usurped by female-identifying men; children are being stripped of their innocence, and their concerns dismissed; life-altering decisions are being affirmed and thrust upon juveniles, whose minds are not biologically equipped to make said decisions, by “trusted adults” who are charged with protecting them; “increasing minors’ access to cross-sex interventions is associated with a significant increase in the adolescent suicide rate”; and, finally, a vast array of serious health risks, including blood clots, heart disease, cancer, strokes, bone loss, infertility, type 2 diabetes, acne, and mental health comorbidities and substance abuse behaviors are found among the transgender population.

 

Allow me to drill down into one of the aforementioned concerns stemming from hormone “therapies” and surgical procedures connected with “gender affirming” treatment. It is generally acknowledged among medical professionals that such interventions seriously impair fertility, including the very real possibility of complete sterility. Health care providers attempt to compensate for this by offering prophylactic measures such as pre-treatment freezing of eggs and sperm. However, these options are prohibitively expensive and typically not covered by insurance. In addition, the National Institute of Health admits that the ability to preserve reproductive cells in prepubescent children (a process historically reserved for childhood cancer patients) is largely untried and questionable at best. This factor constitutes a further indictment of the medical profession’s implementation of such life altering procedures among minors.

 

Readers are urged to view these facts in context with the national push for no-holds-barred abortion (nine states and the District of Columbia allow abortion up to the point of birth) to the tune of over 64 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade's passage in 1973. It might seem logical to assume that abortion numbers have declined in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision which returned abortion laws to the states (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization); sadly, that has not been the case. Increased access to abortion pills via telehealth appointments, as well as “independent organizations… providing direct assistance such as financial support, transportation, childcare, translation services, lodging, and more” to facilitate abortions, have actually resulted in higher yearly numbers of aborted pregnancies in the U.S. since the Dobbs decision.

 

Coupling these daunting statistics with the stampede of physician assisted suicide legislation taking place in our country (currently ten states and the District of Columbia allow medical assistance in dying) and globally (a mindset which resulted in the withholding of treatment from and removal of life support against parents' wishes of babies such as Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans), one wonders if population control is not the ultimate end game of all this social engineering. 

 

Eugenics, anyone?

The Breakdown of Values

 

Lest my readers suspect I’m wandering off into the weeds, let me clarify my point. I’m attempting to show how our society’s love affair with death via abortion and assisted suicide has brought us to the point where our kids are at great risk from the gender identity movement. When human life becomes disposable, our youth internalize this message. (Shameless plug: in my novel, Belabored, one of the themes I try to hammer home is how the main character, Tanya, falls prey to pro-choice arguments and subsequently questions whether her unborn child’s life is worthy of protection.) Is it unreasonable to assume that the next logical step in this continuum of death-glorifying worldviews would be for young people to be willing to risk their fertility and, indeed, their entire futures on an ideological gamble?

 

My prayer is that the resources herein will stimulate discussion among individuals who are willing to reconsider the prevailing social agendas. I’m offering to any who are willing to examine it an “alternative view to the alternative view” that is increasingly being peddled as fact. Declaring that “the emperor has no clothes” may have frightening aspects, but silence is a much more terrifying option. The stakes couldn’t be higher, or the potential for disaster more far-reaching.

The Blight

Our nation is poised to celebrate its 249^th Independence Day very soon. Amid the rejoicing, it seems intellectually honest to note that the glorious words of our forefathers were stained for generations by racism and sexism, as deeply as if the pens that set signatures to revolution-heralding parchments held blood in them.

In a brilliant strategy, the gender ideologues, who are shoving the scientifically groundless undermining of biological differences between the sexes down our throats and the throats of our children, are doing so in the name of human rights. The same pundits who are inflicting this ideology on society are rallying their troops in the spirit of oppression that fueled the actions of women like Susan B. Anthony and Rosa Parks. In reality, this baseless, harmful philosophy is becoming as institutionalized as the cultural blights of slavery and oppression of women were for a huge, shameful part of our country’s history.

It has appeared everywhere in recent years. Public schools, funded by taxpayers, have added gender identity materials to their libraries and curricula. Public libraries, also taxpayer-funded, have jumped onto the Drag Story Hour bandwagon, which introduces gender confusion to impressionable young minds. Even the organization formerly known as Boy Scouts has caved to pressure and opened its doors – and overnight events – not only to girls who identify as boys, but to any girl who cares to join.

Is nothing sacred?

Gender ideology is galloping towards becoming as ingrained in our children’s thinking as were the equally unfounded ideas that skin pigment and a double set of X chromosomes made one group of individuals inferior to another. The movement to saturate young minds with this scientifically indefensible concept smacks of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, with its emphasis on doing away with “old ideas”. It simply must be countered.

The Big Misconceptions

The championing of “gender affirming care” among children relies heavily on a study published in 2014 in the Netherlands. The findings of the “Dutch Study” have come under serious criticism due to subpar research methods, small sample size, and lack of a control group. One critique bemoans the fact that “The Dutch clinicians chose incommensurable scales to measure gender dysphoria, which calls into question their finding that dysphoria declined following cross-sex hormones and surgery.” This flawed foundation, which opened the door to the administration of hormones and “gender reassignment” surgeries to at least 13,994 children in the United States as of 2024, is rightly giving pause to many professionals weighing in on gender dysphoria among our youth.

Another misconception that has taken hold is that if young dysphoric individuals are not given access to hormones and surgeries, they are at extremely high risk of attempting and/or committing suicide. I addressed this concern in my article, In the Name of Gender. My assumptions were based on the premise that, when one attempts to change gender, that person simultaneously tries to erase his/her birth name and previous experience/existence while living as the sex listed on his/her birth certificate, which can lead to feelings of worthlessness if the “gender transition” doesn’t bring the desired happiness. While researching Reclaiming the Rainbow, I came across this article, which provides vital information expanding on and even challenging those assertions. I quote below (bold text mine):

Suicide among trans-identified youth is significantly elevated compared to the general population of youth (Biggs, Citation2022; de Graaf et al., Citation2020). However, the “transition or die” narrative, whereby parents are told that their only choice is between a “live trans daughter or a dead son” (or vice-versa), is both factually inaccurate and ethically fraught. Disseminating such alarmist messages hurts the majority of trans-identified youth who are not at risk for suicide. It also hurts the minority who are at risk, and who, as a result of such misinformation, may forgo [sic] evidence-based suicide prevention interventions in the false hopes that transition will prevent suicide.

The “transition or die” narrative regards suicidal risk in trans-identified youth as a different phenomenon than suicidal risk among other youth. Making them an exception falsely promises the parents that immediate transition will remove the risk of suicidal self-harm. Trans patients themselves complain about the so-called “trans broken arm syndrome” – a frustrating pattern whereby physicians “blame” all the problems the patients are experiencing on their trans status, and a result, fail to perceive and respond to other sources of distress (Paine, Citation2021)…

A recent study of three major youth clinics concluded that suicidality of trans-identifying teens is only somewhat elevated compared to that of youth referred for mental health issues unrelated to gender identity struggles (de Graaf et al., Citation2020). Another study found that transgender-identifying teens have relatively similar rates of suicidality compared to teens who are gay, lesbian and bisexual (Toomey, Syvertsen, & Shramko, Citation2018). Depression, eating disorders, autism spectrum conditions, and other mental health conditions commonly found in transgender-identifying youth (Kaltiala-Heino, Bergman, Työläjärvi, & Frisen, Citation2018; Kozlowska, McClure, et al., Citation2021; Morandini, Kelly, de Graaf, Carmichael, & Dar-Nimrod, Citation2021) are all known to independently contribute to the probability of suicide (Biggs, Citation2022; Simon & VonKorff, Citation1998; Smith, Zuromski, & Dodd, Citation2018).

The “transition or suicide” narrative falsely implies that transition will prevent suicides. Clinicians working with trans-identified youth should be aware that although in the short-term, gender-affirmative interventions can lead to improvements in some measures of suicidality (Kaltiala et al., Citation2020), neither hormones nor surgeries have been shown to reduce suicidality in the long-term (Bränström & Pachankis, Citation2020a; Citation2020b). Alarmingly, a longitudinal study from Sweden that covered more than a 30-year span found that adults who underwent surgical transition were 19 times more likely than their age-matched peers to die by suicide overall, with female-to-male participants’ risk 40 times the expected rate (Dhejne et al., Citation2011, Table S1). Another key longitudinal study from the Netherlands concluded that suicides occur at a similar rate at all stages of transition, from pretreatment assessment to post-transition follow-up (Wiepjes et al., Citation2020). The data from the Tavistock clinic also did not show a statistically significant difference between completed suicides in the “waitlist” vs. the “treated” groups (Biggs, Citation2022). Luckily, in both groups, completed suicides were rare events (which may have been responsible for the lack of statistical significance). Thus, we consider the “transition or die” narrative to be misinformed and ethically wrong.

In our experience working with trans-identified youth, an adolescent’s suicidality can sometimes arise as a response to parental distress, resistance, skepticism, or wish to investigate the forces shaping the new gender identity before social transition and hormone therapy. When mental health professionals or other healthcare providers fail to recognize the legitimacy of parental concerns, or label the parents as transphobic, this only tends to intensify intrafamilial tension. Clinicians would be well-advised that gender transition is not an appropriate response to suicidal intent or threat, as it ignores the larger mental health and social context of the young patient’s life—the entire family is often in crisis. Trans-identified adolescents should be screened for self-harm and suicidality, and if suicidal behaviors are present, an appropriate evidence-based suicide prevention plan should be put in place (de Graaf et al., Citation2020).⁴

It is worth noting that suicide among the trans population can be linked to despair over unmet expectations. Apparently, when a person reaches the end of the trans rainbow, having exhausted all interventions to present as the opposite gender, there can often be a tragic realization that all the surgeries and complications have been for naught. Scott Newgent, who attempted to change gender from female to male, says this: "It takes about seven or ten years to understand what you have done after medical transition.  In the trans community we call it the seven-to-ten year [sic] suicide itch.  .  .  .  And at some point, you have to go back and go. [sic] Why did I do that?  And then you go, Did it fix anything?  And you think to yourself, No.  . . . and then you see a transgender person who is older like you and you go, Did it help you?  and they go, It didn't help a f--ing thing.  And then you go, What are we doing then?  Why are we staying silent?"

Newgent (who is comfortable with people using male or female pronouns to describe her) also alleges a lack of expertise among physicians who offer “gender affirming care”, citing a huge array of medical complications and botched surgeries among the trans community. Newgent decries the chronic infections and ongoing health battles she continues to fight in the aftermath of “gender confirmation” treatment. Indeed, a cursory scroll through the internet will yield phrases like “teetus deletus” in reference to removing healthy breasts to align with gender identity, and other euphemisms like “groin job” that minimize the effects of “gender affirming” procedures. Such catchy terms appeal to young social media consumers while downplaying the myriad risks of these radical interventions.

Detransitioner Prisha Mosley, who miraculously became pregnant after attempting to change gender, describes the horror of carrying a child in her maimed body: “Mosley is particularly haunted by removing her breasts. She now has painful ‘rocks’ that have formed under her chest, or what her doctor says are milk masses stuck under scar tissue with no outlet because her nipples were reattached and are merely, ‘decorative. My doctor said some breast tissue was not removed and I have milk coming in as a response to prolactin.’ Instead of a soft pillow for her baby, her chest is hard.” Mosley’s experience would seem to bear out Newgent’s assertions of subpar care or, at the very least, lack of foresight among physicians offering gender treatment.

The Buck Should Stop Here

Finally (although I have no doubt other critics could provide further reasons why assisting children to change their body chemistry with unnecessary hormones and amputate healthy body parts ought to be illegal), let’s get to the heart of the matter. Who should have ultimate authority over these controversial procedures when it comes to children?

To tackle this question, let me allude to a simple example. Lately, I’ve been filling in for my church’s regular Sunday school teachers. These are the folks who minister week after week to wiggly preschoolers and inquisitive grade schoolers. They plan lessons, stock cupboards with craft supplies and goodies, and generally deserve halos for turning the Lord’s day into a workday for themselves so tired moms and dads can recharge their spiritual batteries.

Being a somewhat frustrated teacher at heart, I find myself tempted at times to ditch the lesson I’m being asked to teach in favor of one of my own choosing. There’s a big part of me that wonders if kids wouldn’t find it more interesting to study a lesser-known text rather than rehash ones with which many are already well acquainted. Through the years I’ve noticed an overemphasis on accounts like Jonah’s adventure in the fish’s belly and Noah’s ark building efforts, both of which I believe to be divinely inspired (not to mention that Jesus referred to both as factual); that said, I know of so many less familiar texts that could fascinate and inspire little hearts. But I digress.

Here’s the point: I don’t yield to that temptation. I respect the fact that the day in, day out instructors have prepared a lesson, and I’m simply holding down the fort. While it might be easy to jump in and wow the little ones with a whole new format and outside-the-box lessons, I recognize that the church has entrusted the responsibility of these kids’ spiritual education to certain people, who have selected certain materials, and I am beholden to said people and said lesson plans.

Contrast the scenario I’ve just described with the behavior of entities such as schools and counselors, which in some cases have taken it upon themselves to support youngsters expressing a desire to “gender transition” in the absence of parental consent. Parents who wipe noses and bottoms, foot the bills, and dangle on the hook for their offspring’s behavior are being excluded from one of the most life-impacting events that can happen to their children. Tragically, courts have been known to rule against parents’ wishes on the gender question. Non-parental agents are entrusted to come alongside, not overrule, lawful parents and guardians, who only loan power to these groups to help shape their kids into future adults. Anything more is an egregious overstepping of authority.

My position is that no outside agency has the right to usurp the rights of law-abiding parents whose only “offense” is refusing to let still-maturing children make irreversible decisions. The parental instinct to protect youngsters from unforeseen dangers (what Scott Newgent calls “seeing around the corner”) should be honored and celebrated, rather than mislabeled “family violence”.

The Backlash

Sadly, recent years have seen an alarming spike in lawsuits against groups and individuals who have refused to compromise their values. People with sincerely held beliefs are finding themselves dragged through expensive, often prolonged litigation in order to keep their jobs or stay in business. A tiny segment of the United States’ population is driving a narrative that has not been scientifically proven or ethically tested, and fear of repercussions is rendering many silent during this crucial time.

The Breakthrough

Thankfully, many voices of reason are adding divergent views in high decibels to the sweeping acceptance of “gender transitioning” young people considered too immature to sign most contracts but apparently old enough to consent to the lopping off of body parts. We are seeing an international about-face regarding gender policy in many western countries. For example, in 2020 Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare issued a report admitting, “People with gender dysphoria, especially young people, have a high incidence of co-occurring psychiatric diagnoses, self-harm behaviors, and suicide attempts compared to the general population. Co-occurring psychiatric diagnoses among people with gender dysphoria are therefore a factor that needs to be considered more closely during investigation. Suicide mortality rates are higher among people with gender dysphoria compared to the general population. At the same time, people with gender dysphoria who commit suicide have a very high rate of co-occurring serious psychiatric diagnoses, which in themselves sharply increase risks of suicide. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain to what extent gender dysphoria alone contributes to suicide, since these psychiatric diagnoses often precede suicide.” 

Similarly, in 2023 Denmark’s Journal of the Danish Medical Association noted, “… in Denmark and other countries there is a much greater proportion of gender dysphoric youth with comorbid mental illness (e.g., 75% in Finland). These conditions include depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts/self-harm, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).”

In the UK, the Tavistock and Portman Gender Identity Clinic closed in 2023 after an independent report on its practices declared, “To date, there has been very limited research on the short, medium or longer-term impact of puberty blockers on neurocognitive development.” The closure followed a lawsuit by Keira Bell, whose story along with those of other gender detransitioners, can be found in my article, In the Name of Gender.

Here in the United States, SCOTUS has just handed down a 6-3 decision in the Skrmetti case, constituting a major breakthrough. Three teens and their parents, along with then President Joe Biden, brought suit against a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone administration to minors suffering from gender dysphoria. The ruling, challenged only by the three historically left-leaning justices, upheld the state’s right to protect young people from making permanent decisions in response to a largely temporary problem, and opens the door for other states to do likewise.

The Bottom Line

 

Despite the possibility of fallout, I feel driven to state my position clearly. What motivates me is the example of my parents, who knew what they stood for, and why.

 

My father once told my siblings and me that he had a driving principle in his life which, at crucial decision-making junctures, kept him out of trouble. He said he would ask himself, “If I engage in this behavior, what will my children think of me?” 

I believe Dad’s life rule applies to inaction, too. James 4:17 states, “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” Heaven forbid that be said of me by future generations.

My mother took things a step further. While Dad’s philosophy kept him from destructive behavior, Mom’s aim was to try to let no injustice go unrighted. This propelled her to advocate for an ailing relative who was divested of a small inheritance by a greedy church leader. Mom later took similar action when she became aware of a school friend whose mental illness threatened to render her homeless. Finally, perhaps her magnum opus (on par with raising her children to be responsible, compassionate adults) consisted of the following. After learning that the child of a destitute family had been seriously injured, she made it her business to obtain their contact information from the news station which had reported the story. Together, she and Dad diverted some of their hard-earned savings to provide a brighter Christmas for the disadvantaged children in that home. I don’t think Dad was ever prouder of her.

My parents didn’t kid themselves that their small contribution to this family’s welfare would ultimately change the latter's overall situation. A few dollars’ worth of toys would not get these folks out of subsidized housing or keep their kids away from drugs or predators. However, they found themselves poised at a certain moment in time to make a small difference in an ongoing problem.

During this month in which pride is being celebrated, I feel the need to join the ranks of those who have been paddling against the “T” part of the LGBTQIA+ tide threatening to sweep our youngsters into lifelong health problems and drug reliance. Many brave detransitioners are speaking out about their unfortunate experiences with this social experiment, and I don’t want them to speak into a vacuum that should be populated by intelligent adults. Things are starting to shift. I hope, through my writing, to be part of that momentum.

Like my parents, I can’t hope to “fix” the entire spectrum of social change that is sweeping this country. Nor would I wish to. The United States has long been a bastion of charity combined with ingenuity, the result of which continues to be aid for the distressed and hope for the downhearted. I believe many who are buying into the gender identity movement are thus motivated and have the purest of intentions. My hope is that, having taken time to seriously consider the points herein, they will find themselves stirred to action of a different sort and, in so doing, reclaim the original meaning of the rainbow for the next generation. May it be said of us that we put “the dreams that we dare to dream” for our children over our personal comfort and security, at a time when a national nightmare threatened to engulf them.

 

 

¹Over the Rainbow, music by Harold Arlen, lyrics by E.Y. Harburg: 1938. Performed by Judy Garland in MGM picture The Wizard of Oz.

 ²C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, revised edition (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1983).

 ³Robert C. Walton, Defending Your Shield: Responding to Attacks on the Uniqueness of Christianity (Brookhaven: Planters Press, 2016). See chapter 2, The Flood. 

 ⁴S. B. Levine, E. Abbruzzese, & J. W. Mason (2022). Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 48(7), 706–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2046221.

 

Old Things, Old People

Generally speaking, I keep things till they die.

Take my electric stove, for instance. It's over 25 years old and looks every day of it. Scratches, chips

that have been repainted and don't quite match (OK, they're eyesores), replaced drip pans which need to be re-replaced - these and many other "beauty marks" adorn this oldie but goodie... but she's still kicking.

Then there's my dryer, which is close to 20 years old, and has outlived several of its neighbors in my basement. Neither the washer nor the water heater can boast such endurance, and I sometimes wonder if the racket Sir Dryer makes in carrying out his duties is his way of touting his longevity.

My treasure of a brother-in-law (OK, he's more like a brother) has breathed new life into that old appliance a number of times. With each load I throw in for a spin dry, I also toss up a prayer of thanksgiving for Tom's expertise and his willingness to invest his skills and talents in my direction.

The guy's one in a million.

I prefer to call my aging array of household equipment unpretentious rather than homely. If connotation is king, I'd like to give my workhorses the benefit of the doubt.

Why do I hang onto old things when I can afford to replace them? The practice has caused me inconvenience at times, when gadgetry bites the dust and I have to scramble to bring in the reinforcements. Still, there's this part of me that enjoys seeing restoration rather than retirement.

After all, they don't make 'em like they used to.

The same can be said of older people. With age comes experience, an invaluable component of wisdom (the fact that I'm rocketing towards my golden years, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with my assessment of the topic at hand). Age doesn't guarantee maturity, obviously, but it does afford the opportunity to "grow up" in ways that matter: self-esteem and humility, for example, which may seem like opposites but are really just two riders on the seesaw of life which, when balanced, make for quite a stable ride.

When I hold onto rickety but still functional appliances, perhaps that's my way of nodding to a world view in which the elderly used to be cherished and respected, as opposed to being chided and rebuked, for their less than modern perspectives. 

I felt this philosophy being underscored yesterday when I caught a Zoomed reunion featuring several key actors from the 1970's TV series, "The Waltons." The cast reminisced about a story line in which the senior Mrs. Walton returned home after suffering a stroke, only to find her former duties being stripped away from her. She cried piteously to her daughter-in-law about her need to be needed. Interestingly, the actress playing the role, Ellen Corby, was herself fighting this same battle in real life. Having survived a stroke, Corby was determined to return to the show minus the ability to speak, upon which her sharp-tongued character relied heavily. Corby proved to the audience and to herself that she had new and different things to offer, even as some of her abilities waned.

My own parents also exemplifed this truth. Both gave richly to their families, even towards the end of their lives. Mom became an encouraging audience for grandson Tommy to practice his fourth grade reading skills, even as she lay helpless and dying. Dad could still make a mean cup of coffee to see his adult daughter through her workday. I can still remember him calling proudly up the stairs, "Your coffee is ready!" before settling onto the couch to watch TV with tiny Ethan (who was the only six-year-old on our block to be conversant in national news and Civil War history, both of which Granddad imparted to his absorbent little mind). When Dad could no longer do those things, his suffering stirred compassion in my older son's heart; Aaron, undoubtedly inspired by the sacrifices he had seen both his grandparents make on our family's behalf, chose to stay by Granddad's bedside rather than collect candy one Halloween.

Who says kids don't copy what they see?

I guess I'm in a sentimental mood, or maybe it's the overabundance of folks I see populating nursing homes, but I just feel the need to speak on behalf of old things and old people. Given the growing public support for assisted suicide, combined with high rates of suicide among the elderly, it seems more urgent than ever to proclaim the worth of a segment of the population whose heyday may be long gone, but for whom vast purpose still remains.

Funny note to build on the point I've been trying to make in this article. I wanted to finish it up and post it last night, but my "getting on in years" computer was slowing down and fizzling out, as was this author. Woke up this morning, and voila, both technology and human have it all back together (well, mostly). Perhaps our older folks (and older things) need a bit more in the rest department to keep going, but at the end of the day, they can still pull things off.

Thanking our great God for all the seasoned stuff and geriatric gems in our midst.

"Those who are planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God.                 

They shall still bear fruit in old age; they shall be fresh and flourishing..."

~ Psalm 92:13-14~

For more like this, check out The Great Reset, AKA, Growing Pains 2