Johnette Wilmot learned CPR when she was 17-years-old and never needed it in the 40 years since then. But, recently, when a 15-year-old went into cardiac arrest during a baseball practice, Wilmot remembered everything as if she had been trained yesterday. Evan Tucker had just finished his freshman baseball season at Pinson Valley High School […] The post ‘Miracles Happen’: Woman Uses CPR Training she Learned 40 Years Ago to Save Teen Baseball Player’s Life appeared first on Good News Network.

The House Oversight Committee has expanded the scope of its probe into President Joe Biden‘s cognitive decline to what White House spokespersons knew while they were on TV defending his fitness for office. While working as the chief spokesperson for the then-president, Karine Jean-Pierre dismissed concerns about her boss’ health, asserting, “Oh, my gosh, he’s the president of the United States, you know, I can’t even keep up with him.”  Now, Jean-Pierre, along with Biden’s former White House chief of staff, Jeff Zients, and other key officials, will have to answer questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about Biden’s fitness to serve in the nation’s highest office. Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., sent letters to the former Biden officials calling for them to appear for transcribed interviews. Similar letters went to Ian Sams and Andrew Bates, who both previously worked in the White House press office during the Biden administration. “President Biden’s inner circle repeatedly told the American people that he was ‘sharp as ever,’ dismissing any commentary about his obvious mental decline as ‘gratuitous.’ They fed these false talking points to progressive allies and the media, who helped perpetuate that President Biden was fit to serve,” Comer said in a public statement. “As part of our aggressive investigation into the cover-up of his cognitive decline and potentially unauthorized executive actions, we must hear from the those who aided and abetted this farce.” Comer has called on multiple Biden White House officials to appear for transcribed interviews. Most did so voluntarily, but the committee issued subpoenas to Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s physician, and Anthony Bernal, a former senior adviser to first lady Jill Biden, after they refused to do so voluntarily. The post House Oversight Calls Biden Chief of Staff, Press Secretary to Testify on Cognitive Decline appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Can public libraries get rid of children’s books featuring sex, masturbation, and gender ideology? That question sparked a lawsuit between Llano County, Texas, and a handful of adult library patrons who claimed that when the Llano library removed explicit books, it violated their right to free speech. The patrons sued on First Amendment grounds, arguing that they had a right to receive the information in the removed books. But when the case reached the Fifth Circuit, the court held that the patrons couldn’t use free speech claims to demand that libraries present certain views because libraries “speak,” too. The controversy began when librarians in Llano County removed 17 books from library shelves. Some were children’s and young adult books depicting sex, masturbation, and gender dysphoria. Others examined race in America through the lens of critical race theory. And a few were what the parties nicknamed “Butt and Fart Books.” An argument ensued between a handful of disgruntled patrons, who wanted the libraries to keep the books, and the librarians, who wanted to remove them, with disagreement centering on why the books were removed. The patrons said the books were taken away because of public complaints about their content. The librarians said they were “weeding” books out for standard reasons such as inaccuracy, damage, and irrelevance. Then came the lawsuit: the patrons claimed that if the library removed books because of their content, it violated the public’s First Amendment right to receive the information in the books. The Fifth Circuit disagreed for two reasons. First, it rejected the premise of the patrons’ argument: the First Amendment doesn’t give the public the right to “tell the government which books it must keep in its library.” In the majority opinion, Judge Kyle Duncan outlined the difficulties created by the patrons’ argument. If a library’s collection is dictated by the patrons’ right to receive information, the library loses control of not only the books it removes, but also the books it buys. And, Judge Duncan pointed out, if libraries can’t remove books because of the information in them, then “the First Amendment requires libraries to shelve the collected works of the Ku Klux Klan.” Duncan concluded that such a position is “utter nonsense”—the Constitution doesn’t require libraries to present every viewpoint. Instead, they choose which books to put on their shelves. This process is, by definition, “viewpoint discrimination.” But according to the Fifth Circuit, that doesn’t make it a First Amendment violation. Second, the Fifth Circuit held that curation of a library collection is “government speech” immune from First Amendment claims. The government becomes a “speaker” when it “selects, compiles, and presents” speech to convey a certain message. A library performs this “expressive” function through the books on its shelves. As Duncan explained, a library tells the community that “[t]hese books are worth reading.” And while “[p]eople can protest what the government says, … they cannot sue to make the government say what they want.” This decision can be read as giving libraries significant power, which would be consistent with courts’ approach to other areas of government speech. Courts have allowed public broadcasters to curate content on their networks, cities to choose displays for public parks, and public museums to decide which works to showcase. In these situations, the government is permitted to express some views and reject others. According to the Fifth Circuit, the same is true when a library crafts a collection of books worth reading. But another way to read the decision is as restraining the courts and giving the people more control over their local government. Duncan’s decision announces that the courts should not and will not make themselves library police. This means that these questions are decided by local governments. It also means that it might really matter who your local librarian is. But you have a lot more control over that choice than you do over who gets appointed to the federal circuit court that presides over your state. With this decision, the Fifth Circuit rejected arguments condemning the library’s actions. “Take a deep breath, everyone,” Duncan told readers, and reminded them that “[n]o one is banning (or burning) books.” Instead, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Llano County library did “what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections.” And that “is what it means to be a library.” The decision in Little works in tandem with the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Mahmoud v. Taylor. There, the Court held that public schools can’t force parents to let their children participate in lessons that undermine the family’s religious beliefs. Together, these two cases help protect kids from content that their parents believe they aren’t ready to see. The post Libraries Can Remove Obscene Books, Says Fifth Circuit appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Conservatives in politics and culture are wise to make fatherlessness a focal point of their family policy priorities. Children who grow up with both parents are more likely to attend college and less likely to go to prison. Conversely, father absence is linked to poverty, teen pregnancy, youth crime, worse academic outcomes, and substance abuse. But there is something else that a society loses when millions of children grow up without a present father; namely, the power of the family name. The concept of a “family name” begins with a surname (e.g., Smith, Williams), but definitely doesn’t end there. It also encompasses the “brand” a family develops within its community over time. A good family name traditionally rested on the shoulders of its patriarch and its cultivation typically began before he had a wife and kids. A man known for a good work ethic, honesty, integrity, and wisdom would seek a woman who shared those values and brought her own—kindness, generosity, supportiveness—to the home. A husband and wife with similar morals were—and still are—in a much better position to pass on those values to their children than a couple who share neither their last name, nor their home. Parents in previous generations weren’t just concerned with maintaining a good family name. They also formed opinions about other families based on the behavior of their children. This is why they would warn their kids about hanging out with certain classmates or children in the neighborhood. Their instincts were backed up by the biblical wisdom that “bad company ruins good morals.” This spiritual principle proves that the family name is not just a concept. It is also an important tool for governing the behavior of the entire household, especially children. Fathers in decades past understood that a good reputation was hard to come by and didn’t want their children doing anything to embarrass the family. Some cultures in other parts of the world still hold to these norms, but they are less common in America today for two interrelated reasons. The first is that families are more fractured than in decades past. In 1970, roughly 10% of American children were born to unmarried parents. Today, the nonmarital birth rate is 40%, and one-in-four children live with a single parent—the highest rate in the world. Americans are also marrying less and later in life. In fact, some parents live in neighborhoods where “DINK” (dual income, no kids) households are more common than large families. These changes in family life explain why some cities seem to invest more in dog parks than playgrounds. The second reason is the cultural aversion to anything associated with shame and stigma. It is hard for a family, community, or society to enforce standards of behavior when its members are constantly chastised for “judging” people who violate the established norms. In short, we live in a cultural moment where people are ashamed of nothing and offended by everything. This problem transcends all of our most familiar social categories. It can be seen in the inner-city teens who carjack people at gunpoint. The same goes for affluent content creators who engage in sexual stunts for cash and clout. In both examples, the strength of the family name should kick in when the conscience fails. It’s one thing for a teenager to be told that stealing could land him in jail and make it harder for him to get a job in the future. It’s another thing for his father to tell him that he shouldn’t steal because “that’s not what men in the Smith family do.” Likewise, a father warning his daughter that her OnlyFans page will make it harder to find a good husband is not the same as him telling her that “Williams women have more to offer the world than their bodies.” For some men, creating a good family name means building on the reputation his father, grandfather, and forebears established. Unfortunately, the prevalence of fatherlessness and broken homes mean that other men must build a family reputation from scratch. The first step in creating a good family name is forming a strong family unit. That means ensuring that the home is built on the foundation of marriage and that both husband and wife share similar values. A conservative Christian man will have a difficult time building a good family name if he marries a radical feminist, regardless of how beautiful she seems on the outside. Dads everywhere need to think about the values they practice and want to pass on to their children. No one can control the family he is born into, but he can decide what type of family name he builds. The post Why We Need Fathers to Make the Family Name Great Again appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday regarding a Texas law that makes it more difficult for children to access pornography.  The ruling in the case of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton could have a larger reach beyond the Lone Star State. Texas joined 19 other states to require pornographic websites to verify their users are age 18 or older.  Justices ruled along ideolgical lines, with the three liberals voting against it. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry trade association, sued the state, naming Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton as the defendant.  The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in January.  The plaintiffs argued the law interferes with adults’ access to “constitutionally protected expression,” and that requiring them to provide identifying information raises privacy concerns. Texas has asked for the case to apply a “rational-basis review.” That means the law survives as long as the state shows a rational reason for it.  The law came from Texas bill HB 1181 which required online pornographers take steps to use commercially reasonable age-verification technology. The statute applies to entities that knowingly post material on the internet “more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors.”  The post Supreme Court Upholds Texas Age-Verification Law for Porn Sites appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Gavin Newsom Sues Fox News

Following the U.S. Supreme Court issuing its final set of rulings for the session on Friday, MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera took to her eponymous show to lead her left-wing legal panelists as they collectively panicked about the court limiting the ability for lower, regional courts from issuing nation-wide injunctions. Cabrera herself proclaimed: “This sounds like a giant win for the Trump administration and could likely trigger chaos now across the country.” University of Michigan assistant law professor Leah Litman’s jaw literally dropped when the rulings were released (pictured above, she's wearing the green jacket). To take a break from clutching her pearls, she touted the belligerence and hyperbolic dissent from the liberal activist justices: I just want to note the Democratic appointees’ strong dissents in this case. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calls the court's decision, “an existential threat to the rule of law.” Justice Sotomayor's dissent says, “no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates.” She calls the court, “complicit in a grave attack on our system of law.” “The reality is the Supreme Court’s Republican justices took away lower courts single powerful tool – the most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration and holding them accountable to the law,” Litman decried. What wasn’t shared was this excerpt from Justice Amy Coney Barrett where she dressed down Jackson, saying: “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”     Further in the show, legal correspondent Lisa Rubin touted how liberal attorneys general had “predicted” how the conservative Supreme Court would supposedly strip away our civil rights, particularly touting New Jersey’s Matt Platkin, who claimed blue states were better places to live: Attorney General [Matt] Platkin in New Jersey told me, and I'm reading from our transcript, “I think it's fair to say, today, your rights and privileges as an American citizen vary based on what state you live in. So, if you want to be free from gun violence, if you want to make sure you have access to reproductive health care, if you want your kids to get a quality public education, all of those are meaningfully different depending on whether you live in a state, frankly, with attorneys general like us, or if not, so that when they created the Constitution and gave power to the states on law enforcement, on education, and a whole range of areas health care, this is what happens when the federal government gets out of that space, and we are standing up for those rights.” “In other words, when the federal government stops being the enforcer of civil rights, cedes that ground and no longer wants to grant civil rights as broadly as we have seen in prior decades, we end up with this patchwork effect where who you are in this country even depends on what state you live in,” lamented. It became clearer that MSNBC was upset that ‘their’ lower court judges were largely defanged when Cabrera invited former Sotomayor clerk Melissa Murry on the program to spout off. “This is a huge win for the Trump administration, because the court has essentially kneecapped lower courts from stopping this administration when it engages in lawless and unconstitutional behavior,” she declared. So obviously, the liberal play book was to abuse the legal system to stymie Republican policy. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports June 27, 2025 10:07:29 a.m. Eastern (…) LEAH LITMAN (asst. professor of law, University of Michigan): I just want to note the Democratic appointees’ strong dissents in this case. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calls the court's decision, “an existential threat to the rule of law.” Justice Sotomayor's dissent says, “no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates.” She calls the court, “complicit in a grave attack on our system of law.” The reality is the Supreme Court’s Republican justices took away lower courts single powerful tool – the most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration and holding them accountable to the law. ANA CABRERA: Chuck. Let me get your reaction. This sounds like a giant win for the Trump administration and could likely trigger chaos now across the country. (…) 10:16:42 a.m. Eastern LISA RUBIN: Attorney General [Matt] Platkin in New Jersey told me, and I'm reading from our transcript, “I think it's fair to say, today, your rights and privileges as an American citizen vary based on what state you live in. So, if you want to be free from gun violence, if you want to make sure you have access to reproductive health care, if you want your kids to get a quality public education, all of those are meaningfully different depending on whether you live in a state, frankly, with attorneys general like us, or if not, so that when they created the Constitution and gave power to the states on law enforcement, on education, and a whole range of areas health care, this is what happens when the federal government gets out of that space, and we are standing up for those rights.” In other words, when the federal government stops being the enforcer of civil rights, cedes that ground and no longer wants to grant civil rights as broadly as we have seen in prior decades, we end up with this patchwork effect where who you are in this country even depends on what state you live in. And increasingly, that may be the case not only in this context, but a variety of different contexts. (…) MELISSA MURRY (former Sotomayor clerk): Leah is exactly right. This is a huge win for the Trump administration, because the court has essentially kneecapped lower courts from stopping this administration when it engages in lawless and unconstitutional behavior. And Lisa makes a really important point. This is all happening in an environment where the Trump administration is not only going after undocumented persons and deporting people without the benefit of due process, they're doing so while they are also upending the legal landscape by making it harder for pro bono outfits to secure the help they need from law firms to bring these suits. And now, with this decision, they're essentially saying that litigants will have to file in each particular jurisdiction around the United States in order to be clear that they're resolution will have legally binding effect. (…)

It's only funny because Trump haters on the Nobel Committee might make that unlikely... Today's CNN This Morning panel burst into laughter when MRC alum and Daily Signal president Rob Bluey said that, based on his accomplishments in the Middle East, there's "talk again about giving Donald Trump the Nobel Peace Prize." Shades of Bill Maher's audience bursting into laughter in 2015 when Ann Coulter said Trump was the Republican most likely to win the 2016 election. [The linked video, to quote the late, great, Noel Sheppard, is particularly "delicious" because Coulter's statement is followed by a clip of Obama saying that while Trump has called him the worst president in history, at least he will go down in history as a president. Braggart Barack actually does a mic (phone) drop.] Granted, Trump was able to accomplish what he has thanks to Israel having virtually eliminated Hezbollah, greatly weakened Hamas, and destroyed Iran's air defenses. So, what say a joint Nobel for Trump and Bibi Netanyahu? That would make liberal heads explode louder than a bunker buster! Bluey joined in the mirth, presumably not because he doesn't believe Trump deserves the honor, but in the knowledge of the reaction his suggestion was likely to receive from the panel composed of NPR alum Audie Cornish, Jackie Kucinich of the Boston Globe, and Dem strategist Maria Cardona. Speaking of Cardona, she was still trying to push the negative Democrat/liberal media narrative, saying of the US strikes on Iran, "we know that the mission wasn't accomplished." You and Natasha Bertrand have your fingers crossed.  The situation in Iran hasn't yet entirely played out. But based on what has been achieved so far, can anyone doubt that Trump could be the person most deserving of the Nobel? Certainly more deserving than Barack Obama was for merely getting elected. Both men disappointed the pacifists. For decades, Iran has been the world's worst sponsor of terrorism. The homicidal fanaticism of its regime has engendered an unprecedented unity of fear and loathing ranging from Western democracies to Arab monarchies, and beyond. The elimination or at least the significant reduction of Iran's nuclear threat represents a gigantic contribution to world peace, in large part thanks to Trump's bold leadership. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 6/27/25 6:04 am EDT AUDIE CORNISH: Here was the focus. Hegseth at one point was lashing out at reporters, as you said, just about the very leaking of what is, and no one has said differently, a preliminary intelligence assessment. It was an early assessment. But the administration has been very upset at the amplification of that assessment. I think we have that.  PETE HEGSETH: When someone leaks something, they do it with an agenda. And when you leak a portion of an intelligence assessment, but just a little portion, just the little portion that makes it seem like maybe the strike wasn't effective, then you start a news cycle.  CORNISH: Maria, it does feel like Democrats are getting to enjoy this question, and talking about this question, and raising doubt.  MARIA CARDONA: Well, I think what Democrats are doing is what they should be doing, which is, like you said, raising questions. Questions about what exactly, not just what does the intelligence say, but what does the administration actually believe happened, to your point, to everyone's point. That's what really matters.  And I think what the problem with the obsession with the word obliterate or obliteration, right? You can kind of equate it to when Bush said mission accomplished, because it all came back to, well, no, it wasn't. And in fact, we know that the mission wasn't accomplished. If the mission was to absolutely ascertain and say definitively that Iran is not going to obtain a nuclear weapon, that didn't happen.  And so it takes away, frankly, from what the administration's message should be, which is, we did a lot to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and now let's figure out what more needs to be done. But that's not happening. Now we're focused on the word, and we're obsessed with, okay, well, what now?  ROB BLUEY: Secondarily, it did bring an end to the 12-day war with Israel, which is a positive -- CORNISH: I like that you're calling it the 12-day war. Like, you're on it. Is that the official -- BLUEY: Yeah, and I mean, look, Donald Trump went to NATO. He obviously had a successful week there. There's, you know, a lot to be celebrated over the course of the last week in terms of hopefully a diplomatic solution. And, you know, talk again about giving Donald Trump the Nobel Peace Prize, Audie. [panel bursts into laughter.] CORNISH: You heard it here. 

CBS and NBC showed welcome restraint their Special Reports Friday morning about the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA concerning universal, nationwide injunctions by individual district court judges, refusing to take the leftist talking points about it being DEFCON-1 for illegal immigrants and birthright citizenship. In contrast, ABC pointed out the ruling had nothing to do with revoking birthright citizenship, but nonetheless played up alleged confusion and complained the Trump agenda might finally go forward without far-left judges playing president and setting nationwide policy. Weekend Good Morning America co-host Whit Johnson even admitted the case was “not as straightforward as I think a lot of people were perhaps expecting or hoping to hear,” but Supreme Court reporter Devin Dwyer — who’s set to take on a high-profile role in judiciary matters with Terry Moran’s firing — portrayed doom ahead for illegals: [T]he President can in the next 30 days begin to develop guidelines for how he would implement [ending birthright citizenship]. It does not mean, however, Whit, that this executive order is free from future legal challenge...It’s going to be messy. It cannot apply to those particular pregnant women that are challenging this. But elsewhere in the country and at the very least in the planning stages, the president can move forward and that is a significant and surprising win for him. Thankfully, The Dispatch’s Sarah Isgur came on right after and made it clear the ruling had nothing to do with axing birthright citizenship Johnson went back to Dwyer, who extrapolated this could bode ill for others on the receiving agenda of other Trump initiatives, including federal workers: Later, Dallas-based correspondent Mireya Villarreal closed out the Special Report with what she’s hearing from what Johnson dubbed “immigration attorneys and advocates.” She admitted that, despite the facts of the ruling, illegal immigrants will be scared: Dwyer and Villarreal then continued on ABC News Live immediately afterward. The former went full woke on the pronouns front For Villarreal’s part, she doubled down on the belief that “it does seem like this could be a win for the administration because basically, you know, the justices are saying you can move forward on the injunction part of this, on the planning part of” birthright citizenship and “most people” won’t “understand the process here” and go immediately to the worst-case scenario. “So, the bigger concern for both immigration attorneys and nonprofit organizations is this could really create chaos in the next 30 days or so and not just for immigrant communities...[W]e’re talking about, you know, the — the people who will be affected by this directly hospitals...[T]his will put a huge burden on those you know, organizations like hospitals that are going to have to directly deal with this exact issue,” she added. Host Diane Macedo doubled down on Dwyer’s “pregnant person” stupidity: Trump-hating correspondent Rachel Scott and ABC News legal contributor James Sample further pulled on the fear thread and overturning centuries of precedent from the 14th Amendment (click “expand”): MACEDO: Rachel, again, this doesn’t now mean that birthright citizenship is over in the U.S., but it does give the administration permission essentially to move forward, so what does that look like? What is it they’re going to be putting into place now? SCOTT: Well, I can imagine that the administration will feel very emboldened coming out of this. They will definitely feel as if the Supreme Court is on their side at least on this issue of them pursuing and trying to implement birthright citizenship, but also during these oral arguments again, you had the conservative justices on the bench really leave some clues about some questions that they could have if this issue of the merits of birthright citizenship comes before the Supreme Court, as we do expect eventually one day it actually will. And during those oral arguments we heard from Justice Brett Kavanaugh really questioning, okay, well how will this go into effect? What happens in hospitals? How do doctors respond? How do states actually implement this? And so, I can imagine now coming out of this too you’ll have the administration and the Justice Department really going back through a lot of those questions and trying to get their ducks in a row for if this issue comes before the Supreme Court yet again. But, broadly speaking here, the administration right now will also likely be looking at other issues, other cases that were blocked by lower district court judges and really be trying to see how broad this ruling from the Supreme Court is and whether or not it applies to those as well, Diane. MACEDO: And James, what does that process now look like in terms of — this was a ruling about nationwide injunctions and the constitutionality of those, how do we then get to is the order itself constitutional? SAMPLE: Well, it’s a good question and as Devin said, that process is going to take some time. It is going to take some — some time to brief the merits, as they say, and really consider you know, when we talk about birthright citizenship, it’s in the 14th Amendment and the controlling judicial precedent from the Supreme Court is a decision wait for it — from 1898. So, we’re talking about uninterrupted in constitutional precedent of the Supreme Court for 127 years and that’s after — that’s from the date from the decision, not from the amendment itself. It’s going to take some time. And you know, Justice Sotomayor — Sonia Sotomayor is still reading her dissent. This is an extraordinary thing in the Supreme Court when it takes this long to take reading aloud. The dissent is a — it’s a sort of tradition and a form of indicating that you’re not just dissenting but you’re angry. And in her written dissent, one of the passages that is pretty profound and speaks to the scale and scope of this decision. She writes: “The rule of law is not a given in this nation nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch” — I think that’s a nod to Congress — “fights for its survival.” Villarreal also predicted protests (read: riots) in major U.S. cities in support of illegal immigration like we saw last month in Los Angeles (click the tweet to read the full quote): Just after 11:00 a.m. Eastern and President Trump’s subsequent press briefing, Villarreal weighed in with one more angle, saying “[t]he concern for immigration attorneys more specifically is this is really going to deter people from getting the representation that they need in courts because really that costs money” in addition to “creat[ing] more fear in immigrant communities.” In contrast to this hubbub, CBS’s Jan Crawford and NBC’s Laura Jarrett took to their network special reports to, in essence, tell everyone to calm down. Crawford made this clear the moment she was given the floor by CBS Mornings co-host Tony Dokoupil: She doubled down and even  Jarrett blatantly told viewers no one was going to suddenly lose their citizenship: To see the relevant ABC transcript from June 27, click here.

A New York state school district has spoken out after a now-former employee — a 22-year-old female — was accused of sending nude photos of herself to a 14-year-old boy.The Chemung County Sheriff’s Office earlier this month said Anamaria Milazzo from the town of Elmira was arrested on charges of disseminating indecent material to minors in the second degree — a class E felony — and endangering the welfare of a child, which is a class A misdemeanor.Milazzo was issued an appearance ticket to appear in the Wellsburg Village Court at a later date, the sheriff's office said.A school resource officer assigned to the Greater Southern Tier Board of Cooperative Educational Services received a complaint June 9 alleging Milazzo sent indecent material to a minor, the sheriff's office said.The criminal investigations division of the sheriff’s office assisted with the investigation and learned that over a three-month period, Milazzo sent nude photographs of herself to a 14-year-old male, the sheriff's office said.The Daily Voice said Milazzo was arrested June 16 and that she had worked as a teaching assistant since December 2024.Milazzo was issued an appearance ticket to appear in the Wellsburg Village Court at a later date, the sheriff's office said. Susan Rider-Ulacco — chief assistant district attorney for the Chemung County District Attorney's Office — told Blaze News that Milazzo wasn't jailed, despite the felony charge against her, because of New York state's bail reform law.The Greater Southern Tier BOCES noted in a statement provided to WETM-TV earlier this week that Milazzo was "put on leave as soon as we were first made aware of the allegations by law enforcement and has not been present at BOCES since that time. She has resigned and will not be returning to campus."The district's statement added: "As this is an ongoing investigation by law enforcement, BOCES is unable to provide any further information at this time. We are committed to the safety and well-being of our students. If you believe you have relevant information relating to the investigation, please contact the Chemung County Sheriff’s Office directly." The school district last week confirmed that Milazzo was a former employee at a BOCES facility in Chemung County, WETM said in a previous report, adding that officials couldn't comment on when her employment ended or her role at the district.The 14-year-old boy was not identified, and it’s not clear if he was a student at the same BOCES school where Milazzo worked, according to the New York Post.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!