In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in favor of Catholic Social Services, a religious agency that the Philadelphia government had shut down because it would not place foster children in the care of same-sex couples. The court concluded that the city had violated the institution’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Alexandra Desanctis notes what liberal critics of the decision fail to understand:

[This] case isn’t, as left-wing activists insist, about “gay rights” at all; it is about children in need. [Moreover], it’s entirely inaccurate to suggest, as Politico did in its breaking-news update, that the court has sided with a group “that turns away same-sex couples as foster parents.” . . . As shown by the Becket Fund, which defended Catholic Social Services in court, the city of Philadelphia has been unable to find a single instance of a same-sex couple so much as approaching the Catholic agency about fostering a child. To suggest that the agency “turns away” such couples, then, is simply untrue.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Politico’s account claims that the court’s ruling now permits Catholic Social Services to “reject would-be parents based on their sexual orientation.” But the institution’s policy has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Rather, the policy—informed by the teaching of the Catholic Church—is to work to place foster children in homes with a married mother and father.

The reason for hypothetically refusing to place a child with a same-sex couple, marital status aside, is because the Catholic Church teaches, and the agency believes, that it is best for children to live in a home headed up by a married mother and father. The sexual orientation of the individuals is beside the point.

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.