If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).

WHITMAN, Mass. — A juror who has spoken publicly after the Lindsay Clancy murder trial is rejecting claims that she was biased, while saying the case created an opportunity to draw attention to women’s mental health and postpartum illnesses.

“We didn’t know what was happening outside that room, but we knew we had an opportunity to start a conversation that could change something — that could maybe prevent this from ever happening again,” Paula Devlin, 65, told News Media. “I think that’s one reason we feel — or I feel — so strongly about it. I hope no other woman or husband ever has to go through this.”

Devlin made similar remarks over the weekend, prompting accusations that jurors entered the case with an agenda. She disputed those allegations Monday.

“We looked at the evidence, and there were holes in the prosecution’s case,” she said. “The biggest part of the entire case was mental health. How can you call that bias when only women can experience postpartum depression? Only women can experience postpartum psychosis. Only women can give birth. That isn’t bias. It’s simply a fact.”

Devlin said Clancy, a 36-year-old former delivery room nurse, repeatedly sought help but did not receive the care she needed.

In January 2023, Clancy strangled her three children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — with exercise bands before attempting to take her own life. She survived a fall from a second-story window but was left paralyzed.

“I truly, truly believe in my heart that if Lindsay had received the help she truly needed, those three children would still be here,” Devlin said. “Those five people would still be a family.”

MORE STORY: Meghan Markle Reportedly Gets Security Review for UK Return

A key flaw in the prosecution’s case, she said, was that they had no witnesses who would say anything bad about Clancy.

“Nobody could find one bad thing to say about this person, and I would bet my house that those prosecutors looked everywhere to find somebody to be derogatory and say derogatory things about Lindsay,” she said. “And nobody could.”

That includes her ex-husband and the victims’ father, Patrick Clancy, Devlin added.

Still, she said, she’s haunted by the children’s faces.

“Those three little faces and just wondering if we missed something, if we didn’t ask the right questions of each other, if we could have done better — it’s hard not to feel like we failed,” she said. “I mean everybody says we didn’t fail, but it’s hard to not feel that when you’re given a task and you don’t accomplish it.”

Medications used to treat depression rank among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States, with roughly one in six American adults taking an antidepressant.

In recent years, however, some health researchers and patient advocates have questioned whether antidepressants are being prescribed too widely. They have also warned that many people who decide they want to stop taking the drugs find it difficult to do so.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has become one of the most high-profile figures raising those concerns. In May 2026, he launched an initiative urging doctors, where possible, to consider alternatives to antidepressants and other psychiatric medications for treating depression.

Psychiatry experts say the reality is more complicated. Antidepressants offer important benefits for many patients, while also carrying potential drawbacks. Although there is some basis for concerns about overuse, the broader evidence does not support a simple conclusion.

What are antidepressants, and who takes them?

More than half of all prescribed antidepressants are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, known as SSRIs. The first of these drugs, fluoxetine — widely recognized by the brand name Prozac — received approval in 1987. Other SSRIs are available, along with several other classes of antidepressants that work through different biological mechanisms.

Antidepressants can be effective for people with moderate to severe depression. They are generally not recommended for mild depression, however, because their side effects may outweigh the likely benefits. A range of effective non-medication treatments is available for people with milder symptoms.

Still, the line between mild and more serious symptoms can become blurred. In common conversation, “depression” may refer to anything from a passing case of the blahs to a severe clinical illness that requires treatment.

Primary care clinicians routinely use a widely accepted questionnaire to screen patients for depression. The tool can help identify people who may need additional assessment or treatment. But when it is used alone as a diagnostic measure, it can be misread or interpreted incorrectly.

A person having a bad week or two who scores higher on a screening test might be prescribed a medication that was not necessary. 

But the tool can also fail to flag people who do need care. Over a third of people who die by suicide have visited a primary care provider in the month before their death. For those 55 and older, it rises to more than two-thirds.

Prescribing in general practice 

According to a 2026 analysis, most prescriptions for antidepressants in the US are not written by psychiatrists. In some cases, these medicines are prescribed by nurse practitioners or physician assistants with psychiatric qualifications, but most are written by primary care providers, who are not specialists in mental health.

Clinicians who provide primary care don’t just have less time to evaluate patients’ mental health concerns. They also have less access to ways of treating depression apart from medication, such as talk therapy.

Primary clinics that have behavioral health providers and consult with psychiatrists tend to help patients more effectively and provide more treatment options. These types of collaborative approaches to care are still rare but are becoming more common.

Today’s primary care providers do receive more training on mental health issues, and they are often more equipped to recommend lifestyle changes that can be especially helpful for people with less severe depression symptoms.

But it’s simply human nature that when given a choice between taking a daily medication and engaging in activities that require commitment and intention, many will choose medication.

The opposing forces of stigma and access 

Stigma has been a long-standing barrier in seeking mental healthcare.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, anxiety and depression have become more prevalent. That’s particularly true among adolescents and young adults – especially young women, who tend to experience less stigma around mental health issues.

MORE STORY: Mamdani and New York AG Letitia James Sue Trump Over Visa Denials

New rules during the pandemic also made it significantly easier for people to access mental health treatment – both therapy and medications – remotely, via telehealth. Such access continues to grow. 

Before the pandemic, only one percent to two percent of antidepressant medications were prescribed via telehealth. By 2022, it was roughly one-third.

Given these trends, and the fact that clinicians often turn to medication for treating depression regardless of the severity, the uptick in antidepressant prescriptions since 2020 should come as no surprise. 

Virtual visits allow people to navigate more easily around stigma and find increased and convenient access to care. And many people feel more comfortable getting such care in a primary care clinic rather than a mental health clinic.

Systemic issues drive prescribing 

For all these reasons, one could argue antidepressant medications are likely overused in some cases. Undoubtedly, some people who take them either don’t benefit from them or could address their symptoms in other ways.

On the other hand, expanded access to mental healthcare – including medication – has also enabled people who need treatment to receive it. Even now, many Americans with serious depression receive no or limited treatment.

What’s more, this imbalance reflects systemic problems in the US healthcare system at least as much as physicians’ prescribing habits or patients’ requests.

For example, primary care clinics are a great place to screen for mental health issues, but getting proper treatment may involve more specialized care – which many patients can’t access. 

And on the business side, clinicians get little support in helping patients with lifestyle changes and non medication treatments – rather than prescribing drugs.

Difficulties in ditching antidepressants 

Kennedy has claimed that for some people, stopping antidepressants can be harder than quitting heroin. Research suggests such extreme effects of discontinuing medication are rare, though not unheard of.

Any time a person is on a medication for a significant period of time, the brain and body adapt to establish a new balance. This happens with other substances, too – as any regular coffee drinker who has tried abruptly quitting knows.

People who want to stop taking antidepressants after being on them for a long time generally do best when they gradually taper their dose over weeks to months, unless they have a specific reason for stopping more quickly.

For antidepressants, clinicians watch for withdrawal symptoms including sleep problems, flu-like symptoms, headaches and an electrical buzzing sensation in the head. 

A 2024 review of dozens of rigorous studies that compared the experiences of people taking antidepressants with those taking a sugar pill found that roughly a quarter of people stopping antidepressants experienced some withdrawal symptoms, and for three percent, they were severe.

While certain antidepressants might be more likely to cause withdrawal symptoms, it’s tough to tell who might have the most difficulty. And for some patients, depression is a chronic illness for which they must take medication indefinitely.

However, most people working with an experienced clinician are able to successfully discontinue these drugs. Ultimately, what’s most important is that patients are able to consult with a knowledgeable provider in making that decision.

This article is adapted from The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization dedicated to sharing the knowledge of experts. It was written by Andrew McLean, a clinical professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of North Dakota. It was edited by Alexa Lardieri, the US health editor at the Daily Mail. 

Meghan Markle has reportedly been granted her first government-backed security review since returning to the UK.

Markle and her husband, Prince Harry, are both expected to undergo an official risk assessment shortly, the Telegraph reported Monday.

The Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as Ravec, has reportedly asked the couple to provide comprehensive details about their new day-to-day routines.

According to the report, the Ravec chairman informed Harry last week that fresh security risk assessments would be commissioned for both him and Markle following their move back to Britain.

Hello! also reported Monday that Markle, 45, and Harry, 41, have opted to change their children’s school over security concerns tied to the journey to the school they initially selected. The decision came just two days after the children began attending.

Heavy traffic and the distance between the school and the family’s home reportedly contributed to the decision, placing pressure on “their small, private security team.”

Markle has previously voiced concerns about her children’s privacy while attending school in the UK. In a 2022 interview with the Cut, she raised the prospect of paparazzi photographing Princess Lilibet, 5, and Prince Archie, 7, during school drop-offs and pickups.

“Sorry, I have a problem with that,” she said at the time. “That doesn’t make me obsessed with privacy. That makes me a strong and good parent protecting my child.”

READ MORE: America’s Favorite Diner Chain Is Planning a Major Comeback

A friend close to the couple previously told the Telegraph that daily school runs could represent the “most danger” for Harry and Markle after their return to the UK without taxpayer-funded security.

“It is absolutely the biggest area of concern,” the source said.

News of the security review and school concerns comes one day after the former “Suits” actress shared an intimate video on Instagram of the family’s picture-perfect return to Harry’s home country.

The video includes footage of Lilibet riding her bike as Archie runs beside her, and Harry taking his kids out on a boat to fish.

According to royal commentator Kinsey Schofield, the decision to post intimate family moments on social media is “striking” in its “hypocrisy.”

“If privacy is genuinely the priority, the most effective strategy is simple… stop broadcasting your family life to millions of strangers,” Schofield exclusively told Page Six Sunday. “Every hyper-curated glimpse of the children, the dogs, the countryside, and their domestic routine invites more attention, more questions, and more interest in where and how they are living.”

She added, “You cannot deliberately feed that machine and then act astonished or outraged when people want to know more.”

Harry and Markle are awaiting an answer from the UK’s Home Office about whether they will receive long- term taxpayer-funded police protection now that they are residing in Europe. They were previously denied protection rights during visits to the UK.

The Houthis’ swift push toward a vital global shipping passage has renewed attention on the vast financial machinery behind the Iran-backed movement. Once primarily a Yemeni insurgency, the group has developed into a heavily armed regional force with the capacity to disrupt international commerce.

After capturing additional ground along Yemen’s Red Sea shoreline, including the strategically important port city of Mocha, the Houthis have moved closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The narrow waterway links the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and serves as a crucial route for worldwide trade and energy cargoes.

For the Trump administration, the Houthi expansion presents a financial problem alongside the military threat. U.S. officials are stepping up attempts to restrict the funding available to Iran and its allied groups. Yet the Houthis have created an extensive system for evading sanctions while overseeing ports, commercial routes and the daily lives of millions of Yemenis. That leaves the Treasury Department facing a complex balance: stopping money that supports the group without disrupting essential supplies of food, fuel and other humanitarian necessities.

According to Adam Rousselle, founder of Between the Lines Research, the Houthis’ financial reach stretches well beyond Yemen’s borders.

“We’re dealing with a very well-capitalized group,” Rousselle told News Media.

In a 2025 investigation published by the Global Network on Extremism and Technology, Rousselle documented a funding structure that runs through Houthi-held ports, customs charges, Iranian oil, informal hawala transfer systems, cryptocurrency platforms and overseas intermediaries in Russia, Turkey and Southeast Asia.

Ports have long been a cornerstone of Houthi income, particularly because Yemen relies so heavily on imported goods. Rousselle’s GNET report found that the group levies substantial port fees in areas under its control, while also charging tariffs on products entering Houthi territory from ports held by rival Yemeni factions.

The Houthis’ newest territorial advances may give the group an even stronger foundation for generating revenue.

Nadwa Al-Dawsari, a Yemen expert and associate fellow at the Middle East Institute, told lawmakers in Sept. 1 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that territory is central to the Houthis’ ability to withstand outside pressure.

“The most important source of that leverage is territory,” Al-Dawsari testified. “The Houthis have been able to consolidate their power and build increasingly sophisticated military capabilities because they control significant territory, a large population, ports, infrastructure, and resources.”

“That territorial base allows them to recruit, generate revenue, manufacture and store weapons, control smuggling routes, and regenerate capabilities degraded by airstrikes and sanctions,” she added.

Rousselle said the Houthis’ finances should not be understood simply as Tehran handing cash to an Iranian proxy.

“It’s a bit of a misunderstanding that the Iranians just give them money,” he said, describing the Houthis instead as embedded in a broader Iranian commercial ecosystem.

“The Houthis aren’t sanctions-proof; they’re sanctions-adapted,” Miad Maleki, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told News Media. “Most of their money is made inside Yemen — customs and taxes at Hodeidah and Ras Isa, and fuel above all.”

Treasury has estimated that the Houthis generate more than $2 billion a year from oil sales, while Iran provides the group with a free monthly oil shipment through Iranian-owned or affiliated companies based in Dubai. Treasury has also documented Houthi revenue from taxes imposed on petroleum imports.

“Sanctions can’t reach domestic extraction,” Maleki said. “What they can reach is the plumbing between Sana’a and the outside world; the exchange houses, the Dubai and Muscat correspondents, the tankers and the wallets.”

At the center of that system is Sa’id al-Jamal, whom the Treasury Department has identified as an Iran-backed Houthi financial official operating an international network that sells Iranian commodities and channels proceeds toward the group.

Treasury said in April 2025 that al-Jamal’s network had procured tens of millions of dollars in weapons, sensitive goods and commodities from Russia and identified eight digital-asset wallets used by the Houthis. Blockchain analytics cited in Rousselle’s GNET research identified nearly $900 million in outflows across those addresses.

Rousselle cautioned against treating that figure as a complete picture of Houthi wealth.

“The system is more important than the number itself,” he said, describing the network as fluid and difficult to quantify.

ALSO READ: Teen Girl and Boyfriend Found Dead After Leaving State-Run Care

Russia, he argued, has become a particularly significant part of the network. “The Russians are definitely more hands-on in their support,” Rousselle said.

Al-Dawsari’s congressional testimony similarly highlighted the Houthis’ expanding relationships beyond Iran, saying the group is “deepening ties with other U.S. adversaries, particularly Russia and China.”

She cited reports that Russia provided targeting data used to help the Houthis attack Western ships in the Red Sea and that Russian petroleum products were transferred ship-to-ship into a Houthi-controlled tanker before reaching the Houthi-controlled port of Ras Isa.

The China connection is more complicated. Rousselle said Chinese-linked private commercial actors appear in parts of the network but distinguished that activity from proven direct Chinese government involvement.

“The Chinese are kind of… turning a blind eye,” he said.

His GNET report described Iranian oil flowing to privately owned Chinese “teapot” refineries and examined transactions linked to Southeast Asian financial networks, while cautioning that the available evidence did not establish direct Chinese government control of Houthi financing.

Al-Dawsari pointed to a broader Chinese role in Houthi supply chains. Citing U.S. officials, she said a Chinese satellite company with ties to the Chinese military provided satellite imagery supporting Houthi attacks against U.S. warships and international shipping. She also cited interdiction data showing that 60% of the components and materials used in the Houthi Qasef-2K drone came from China, compared with roughly 15% from Iran.

That sprawling network is now testing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s broader effort to isolate Tehran economically and disrupt the financial channels sustaining Iran and its proxies.

Rousselle said decentralized illicit-finance networks present a fundamental challenge.

“You’re dealing with a ‘you shut down one, another pops up’ kind of situation,” he said.

Maleki argued that Washington should concentrate on the points where Houthi money intersects with the formal financial system.

“The soft spots are wherever Houthi money touches the formal system,” he said. “Treasury has named the Yemeni banks and the Sana’a exchange houses that pay for missile components; it should now name the foreign correspondents still clearing for them. That is the one tool that changes behavior overnight.”

Oman represents another potential pressure point. “Oman is the Houthis’ land bridge and their mailing address,” Maleki said.

But squeezing Houthi finances presents another dilemma: Yemen remains one of the world’s most fragile humanitarian environments, and the Houthis control ports and infrastructure through which civilians receive food, fuel and other basic goods.

“I would be lying if I had a concrete answer to it,” Rousselle said when asked how Washington could disrupt Houthi revenue without worsening the humanitarian crisis.

“The humanitarian argument is the Houthis’ best shield, and it’s backwards,” Maleki said. “Food and medicine are licensed and should stay that way.”

“Keep the goods flowing and take away the toll,” he added, arguing that Washington should seek ways to prevent humanitarian trade from generating taxes and fees for Houthi authorities.

Rousselle warned that the challenge extends far beyond Yemen.

“This isn’t just about the Houthis,” he said. “This is about any sanctioned actor worldwide capable of harnessing financial systems that are completely outside of regulatory control.”

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to News Media’s request for comment.