A new medical phrase has entered our vocabulary—“transgender medicine.” It refers to medical treatments for children who identify as transgender. The treatments at issue include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery, although this is relatively rare. The Economist summarizes these treatments: “Puberty blockers are drugs that delay the onset of puberty. Cross-sex hormones stimulate the development of opposite-sex characteristics: estrogen causes males to grow larger breasts, testosterone gives females bigger muscles and deeper voices, among other things.”

At the heart of the pro-life movement is the deep-seated conviction that from the moment of conception, an unborn child is a separate human life. Although the baby is completely dependent on the mother, it is still a separate human life. The baby’s life is not more important than the mother’s—which is why the best-drafted pro-life laws protect the life and physical health of the mother—but it possesses incalculable worth nonetheless. “Absent extreme circumstances, the unborn child must not be intentionally killed. And while pro-life Americans can disagree about how to protect unborn children—whether it’s primarily through legal restrictions, primarily through measures meant to reduce the demand for abortion, or primarily through a combination of abortion restrictions or financial assistance to mothers and families—there has long been agreement on that one core claim: From the moment of conception, an unborn child is a person worth protecting.”

Concern, even anxiety, about the upcoming generation is a given in American history. For example, in 1935, George Leighton and Richard Hellman in Harper’s lamented the apathy, disenchantment and criminality of high school students in America. In 1982, Neil Postman published The Disappearance of Childhood in which he argued that teens were adopting adult vices (e.g., heavy drinking, crime and sexual immorality). He blamed television. In that same spirit of concern and anxiety, a new book by Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing An Epidemic of Mental Illness, gives focus to smartphones and social media.

There seems to be a broad consensus within the United States about the war in Gaza, structured around two propositions. First, after the attacks of Oct. 7, Israel has the right to defend itself and defeat Hamas. Second, the way Israel is doing this is “over the top,” in President Biden’s words. The vast numbers of dead and starving children are gut wrenching, the devastation is overwhelming, and it’s hard not to see it all as indiscriminate. Which leads to an obvious question: If the current Israeli military approach is inhumane, what’s the alternative? Is there a better military strategy Israel can use to defeat Hamas without a civilian blood bath? As we approach answering these questions, I want to place these wrenching questions into an important context.

Opponents of U.S. aid to Ukraine claim the country persecutes Christians. “When American leaders frame this as a war for democracy and human rights, it would be good if the recipient of the aid was a little bit more careful of human rights, including religious liberties,” Sen. J.D. Vance said in an interview in mid-March. Ukraine “is doing some pretty bad stuff,” he adds, citing “news reports of priests being investigated, church assets being seized and priests being arrested.” Ukrainians have “invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests,” according to Sen. Rand Paul. Rep. Paul Gosar says Kyiv has “banned Ukraine’s oldest and largest denomination, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

Two years of full-scale war in Ukraine have reshaped the military alliance called NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization): Finland and Sweden have now joined, an unintended consequence, as afar as Vladimir Putin was concerned, of his brutal aggression against Ukraine. It is probably correct to argue that NATO is now more united than it has been since the fall of the USSR in the 1990s. NATO announced this month that two-thirds of the alliance’s members have met the goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. That is a marked increase from a decade ago. But, at the same time, former President Donald J. Trump, the likely Republican candidate, said this month that he was willing to let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” against NATO allies that do not fulfill their commitments on military spending.

A regular columnist in The Economist magazine writes under the label “Lexington” and recently published an article summarizing a 1988 six month visit by a Chinese political scientist, Wang Huning, to America and his subsequent book, America Against America. [Wang is now Chief of Ideology and Propaganda in China.] Wang was mesmerized by the voluntary pursuit of financial wherewithal, rather than any ideology or political system of coercion in America. For him, this was a source of stability. He was astonished at public libraries, where people could access the knowledge of generations past.

There is one incontrovertible fact about America: We are a nation of immigrants. It is important to remember this even about former president Trump: His mother came from Tong, a remote Scottish settlement that was once Viking territory. His grandfather came from Kallstadt, a Bavarian village. In America, everyone is from somewhere else; even Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait millennia ago.

The Alabama Supreme Court clearly opened a new phase in the legal battle over when life begins. Embryos created and stored in a medical facility must be considered children under the state’s law governing harmful death, the Court ruled. The ruling involved three couples who had sued the Center for Reproductive Medicine, a fertility clinic in Mobile, for inadvertently destroying their embryos. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to punitive damages under Alabama’s 1972 Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The Court argued that the embryos fell under Alabama’s definition of minors and that the negligence lawsuits could proceed. The case now goes back to the State District Court for further litigation.

The Russian state blandly announced the death of Alexei Navalny. Navalny was Russia’s foremost dissident and opposition leader. Despite being poisoned and repeatedly punished with long bouts of isolation in remote prisons, Navalny stood unbroken. He continued to mock Putin and denounce the invasion of Ukraine. As Nicholas Kristof argues, “His wit and refusal to bow to authority made him a Kremlin nightmare.”