The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia was reportedly struck by two suspected Iranian drones, according to surfacing reports and U.S. officials. Loud explosions could be heard with smoke seen rising over Riyadh, the country’s capital.

Alzheimer’s disease is a brutal disease that not only affects the patient but also those who love them. It’s so difficult to watch someone you care about deeply change into someone you don’t always recognize. In the beginning, Alzheimer’s patients sometimes recognize how their lives are changing, and it’s heartbreaking. A woman found a sticky note left by her husband during his Alzheimer’s journey. It’s a beautiful testament to their love, and it’s likely to make you shed a tear or two. “P.S. I forget a lot of things but – I never forget how wonderful you are. Love Joseph,” the sweet not reads. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Pubity (@pubity) Alzheimer’s Didn’t Take the Doting Man’s Love Caption on a viral Instagram post sums up the sentiment beautifully. “With Alzheimer’s affecting more than 7 million Americans, many families saw their own stories in Joseph’s words, calling it a rare, lasting reminder of love through loss,” the message reads. True love can transcend difficult times, and seeing this sweet message made many people emotional. “The way the handwriting gets a little shaky at the end… You can tell he was fighting to get those words down while he still could. Absolutely heart-wrenching,” someone wrote. Others believe Joseph’s love affair with his wife will continue far beyond Alzheimer’s. “Love truly leaves a lasting mark, even through memory loss,” someone wrote. “I hope they find each other again in a better place and time one day,” another person added. Of course, many people found themselves overcome with tears from Joseph, his wife, and the entire Alzheimer’s community. Although it’s a cruel disease, it’s comforting to see so much empathy in the world, particularly from total strangers. “Another day of me crying on the Internet for strangers,” a comment reads. This story’s featured image can be found here.

Every day, we encounter people who have the potential to change our lives forever, and we don’t even realize it. When Bill Sumiel Jr. called for an Uber ride in 2021, he had no idea his driver, Tim Letts, would be the answer to his prayers. Tim picked Bull up from his dialysis appointment, and the pair began a friendly chat. Bill mentioned his need for a kidney transplant and that he’d been on a list for years. “The ride was fantastic,” Bill told Fox & Friends. “I met this gentleman. He talked back when you start [a] conversation. A lot of Uber drivers don’t. And so, it inspired me, by friendliness, to tell him about my situation.” The story moved Tim so strongly that he decided to offer him a kidney of his own. The Uber driver turned into a kidney donor in a matter of moments. “We got to my house. And Tim says, ‘If you’ll take my name and number, I’d like to donate a kidney to you.’” Bill recalled. “I was so nervous. I could hardly read his name and number.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by Your Positive News (@yourpositivenews) The Uber Driver and Passenger Were Compatible for Kidney Donation Remarkably, Bill and his Uber driver were a perfect match, and Time donated his kidney to Bill. Tim said he’d always considered becoming a donor, and this proved to be the perfect opportunity. “I come from a relatively healthy bloodline. I’m pretty healthy,” he said. “So, I [didn’t] see that being much of a challenge.” The Uber driver made a profound statement abouth is kidney donation journey. “If a person like that can’t have somebody stand in their corner, then kind of what’s the point of it all?” Tim said. “Mahatma Gandhi says to ‘be the change you want to see in the world,’ and Maya Angelou says to ‘be a rainbow in someone’s cloud,’ and those things, they mean the world to me.” This story’s featured image can be found here.

The Supreme Court Monday vindicated parental rights, upholding an injunction against California’s gender secrecy policy, which mandated that school staff hide a student’s claimed transgender identity from parents unless the student expressly consented to reveal it. “This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society, said in a statement responding to the decision Monday. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.” “The court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country,” Jonna added. Challenging the Gender Secrecy Policies The Thomas More Society sued on behalf of teachers in the state who feared punishment if they refused to lie about a student’s gender identity. Parents and other teachers joined the lawsuit, challenging the Escondido Union School District’s policy of hiding students’ gender identities from parents unless students consented to reveal them.The teachers also sued the California Department of Education, which has a similar policy. While a district court judge issued a permanent injunction blocking the schools from enforcing gender secrecy policies, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted the school district and the state a stay of the injunction. Elizabeth Mirabelli, the teacher suing in a key gender secrecy case (Thomas More Society) The Supreme Court’s Parental Rights Ruling The Supreme Court issued an unsigned opinion vacating the 9th Circuit’s stay when it comes to the parents. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have ruled in favor of the parents and the teachers, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor would not have taken up the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent, which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. The court’s unsigned opinion recounted the story of two parents who didn’t know their eighth grade daughter publicly identified as a boy until after she attempted to commit suicide and was hospitalized. Months after her daughter left the hospital, she returned to the hospital after further risk of self-harm. Their daughter attended a different school for ninth grade and once again identified as a boy; that school also hid her gender transition, expressly rejecting the parents’ wishes. The daughter is now receiving psychiatric care. The court concluded that “the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.” California’s policies “substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,'” the court ruled, citing Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case in which the court ruled that parents have the right to opt their children out of receiving LGBTQ+ instruction. “The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court ruled. “California’s policies violate those beliefs” and impose an “unacceptable” burden on them, the opinion stated. “Indeed, the intrusion on parents’ free exercise rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.” California claims that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy, but the court ruled that “those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” The court also found that the parents would likely succeed in claiming the state violated their due process rights. “Under long-established precedent, parents—not the state—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’ The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health,” the opinion stated. The court found that “the denial of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights during the potentially protracted appellate process constitutes irreparable harm.” The court also noted that the district court’s injunction permits California “to shield children from unfit parents by enforcing child-abuse laws and removing children from parental custody in appropriate cases,” thus allowing for the key interest of protecting children while protecting parental rights. Justice Kagan faulted the court for issuing an emergency ruling after receiving “scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute,” and without holding an oral argument or debating in conference. Mirabelli v Bonta SCOTUSDownload Wrapping Up the Parental Rights Case The court did not uphold the right of teachers to refuse to lie to parents—the key issue at the beginning of the case—but the ruling here only applies to the injunction; it does not resolve the overall case. That said, lower courts will follow the Supreme Court’s lead and uphold the fundamental rights of parents against gender secrecy policies, making the case a pivotal victory for parental rights. The post Supreme Court Upholds Parental Rights Against California Gender Secrecy Policy appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Monday's Final Word