“Pro-life.” When you read this, what do you see? It might be the image of an ultrasound or pro-life events like the March for Life in Washington, D.C. Others may see a newborn wrapped in a cozy blanket.

But what happens to this baby after his or her birth?

Although the church does incredible work to care for children who have been granted their right to life, it feels as though the stereotypical pro-life movement is not often associated with advocacy measures for what comes after birth: the rest of a child’s life.

As a pro-life supporter, it frustrates me that these two discussions — the protection of preborn human life, and proper care for children after birth — do not always go hand-in-hand. While pro-life activists rightfully encourage healthy pregnancies and safe births, we must remember that the term “pro-life” also includes services such as safe foster homes and adoptions. In fact, a well-functioning foster care system could significantly reduce women’s felt “need” for abortions.

Tragically, many children who receive their right to life are born into horrible circumstances — abusive or neglectful homes, abandonment, families battling addiction, parents who lack resources to care for their child, the death or incarceration of a parent — the list goes on.

Terrible situations such as these have forced the removal of countless children from their families and warranted their placement in the foster care system. Unfortunately, the term “pro-life” does not typically prompt images of such scenarios.

The Supreme Court allowed the Department of Education (DoEd) to continue laying off employees Monday, temporarily suspending an order by a lower court judge that blocked the DoEd from firing employees and ordered it to reinstate any employees already laid off.

DoEd laid off almost 1,400 employees in March, as part of an effort to eventually shut down the department and return educational authority to state and local governments.

Two groups then filed lawsuits challenging DoEd actions.

The stay was granted in a 6-3 decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Court’s decision remains in effect while a court of appeals takes up the administration’s appeal of the case.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent attacked the administration’s actions and the Court’s stay, arguing only Congress has authority to dismantle the DoEd:

“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it. Two lower courts rose to the occasion, preliminarily enjoining the mass firings while the litigation remains ongoing.”

“Rather than maintain the status quo, however, this Court now intervenes, lifting the injunction and permitting the Government to proceed with dismantling the Department. That decision is indefensible.”

Meet Scott Ruskin, the U.S. Coast Guard rescue swimmer who saved over 200 lives responding to the horrific floods in Texas.

Petty Officer Ruskin, an aviation survival technician 3rd class stationed in Corpus Christi, Texas, directly saved 165 people in Kerr County, according to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem.

“This was the first rescue mission of his career and he was the only triage coordinator at the scene,” Secretary Noem said. “Scott Ruskin is an American hero. His selfless courage embodies the spirit and mission of the U.S. Coast Guard.”

Of the 165 people Petty Officer Ruskin rescued, 15 were campers from Camp Mystic in Hunt, Texas, where 27 other campers and counselors lost their lives.

Ruskin also remained with victims of the flooding, providing medical assistance to and aiding with the evacuation of 230 victims, a press release from the Coast Guard disclosed.

Ruskin, a New Jersey native, graduated from Rider University in 2021.

During his mission, he found himself with around 200 children who were “all scared, terrified, cold, having probably the worst day of their lives,” Ruskin told Good Morning America in an interview.

“I saw a huge crowd of about 200 kids at a campsite,” he added in an appearance on Fox & Friends. “We were like, ‘Cool, that’s where we’re going to go and get as many people out as we can.’”

California Governor Gavin Newsom is languishing in a political purgatory of his own making.

An ambitious and astute politician, the governor embarked on a media tour this month to position himself as the reigning “moderate” in a leaderless and increasingly radical Democrat party.

But the governor is struggling to reconcile his new, “common sense” platform with the progressive ideology that propelled him to prominence. The disconnect is nowhere more evident than in his shifting position on “transgenderism.”

Newsom began distancing himself from his more radical colleagues in March, when he called publicly called forcing girls to compete against boys in sex-segregated sports “deeply unfair.”

His comments effectively launched his centrist rebrand. But they also landed him in hot water with some of his most powerful supporters.

“My party was [angry], the LGBTQ caucus [was angry],” Newsom told podcaster Shawn Ryan in an interview released this week.

“I’ll never forget that meeting with my friends, furious with me because I don’t think it’s fair [to allow boys to compete in girls sports].”

Of course the LGBT caucus was angry; Newsom, a self-described “champion” of LGBT rights, has been a staunch supporter of the caucus’ agenda for more than two decades. In 2004, as mayor of San Francisco, he issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples — before it was legal to do so.

In his interview with Ryan, Newsom called it one of his “proudest accomplishments.”