Latest news with #Liggett
Los Angeles Times
21-04-2025
- General
- Los Angeles Times
An Opportunity to Rebuild Affordable and Energy-Independent Solutions
This Earth Day, as we reflect on the recent firestorm that impacted so many in Los Angeles, I want to focus on the immense opportunity before us to rebuild smarter, more resilient communities that are better prepared to meet today's growing energy challenges. The ripple effects of the fires reached far beyond the burn zones. Widespread power outages left more than 4 million energy customers in Southern California – many living in cities away from the fires – without reliable electricity for days. These blackouts disrupted lives, spoiled food, endangered health, and cut off vital communication at a time when families needed it most. Just days after the fires began, I visited with our Sunrun teams and customers in Los Angeles. I heard story after story of how solar and battery-powered homes became safe havens, providing essential power, light, and peace of mind when the grid failed. In those moments, these homes become more than just shelter. They become critical infrastructure for entire neighborhoods. These experiences offer a powerful blueprint for what's possible. With widely accessible technology like home solar and batteries, we have proven solutions that can help communities become more energy independent in the face of emergencies. That's why this Earth Day feels especially significant. It's not only a time to acknowledge the challenges we face, but also a chance to act on the incredible opportunity we have to build a more affordable, energy-independent future for all. L.A. resident Scott Liggett had his solar and battery system installed just a few months before the wildfires. When his community lost power, his home stayed energized, allowing him to open his doors to neighbors. 'I found my elderly neighbor outside, wandering around kind of dazed, and so I brought her over to my house and warmed her up, got her some coffee, and hooked up her cell phone,' Liggett said. 'With my solar and two batteries, my home was like an energy oasis in the neighborhood so people could charge their devices and stay warm.' Liggett is the perfect example of how home solar and batteries can have a community impact. Not only did Scott welcome neighbors into his home, but he also connected a 50-foot extension cord to provide power to a family next door. Richard Olague of San Bernardino described that while his neighbors relied on candles and lanterns for 72 hours, his house had power. 'Just knowing that we could literally flip the switch while other people were in the dark gave us a lot of peace of mind,' Olague said. 'Not only was it comforting to us, but also being able to provide for our friends and neighbors.' These firestorms won't be isolated events. We must act on the valuable lessons they have taught us as California continues to face extreme weather and grid instability. In addition to building homes that are better protected from wildfires, the prolonged power outages provided a rare real-world look at what households taking control of their energy with solar and batteries can do for families and their communities. But even as these solutions become more affordable and accessible, opposition remains from utilities and policymakers trying to minimize their value and limit access despite their clear and growing benefits to all Californians. An analysis by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that in 2023, 60% of new solar adopters in California were low- to middle-income households, and 52% were families of color. Beyond providing critical backup power during emergencies, home solar and battery systems help insulate families from soaring energy bills, even as investor-owned utility profits rise. They also deliver broader benefits by supplying the grid with lower-cost, locally generated power during peak demand, helping to drive down energy costs for everyone. In 2024 alone, home solar reduced grid stress and saved all California ratepayers $1.5 billion. This is the moment to recognize and celebrate home solar and batteries for what they are: essential infrastructure that strengthens communities, supports energy equity, and drives us toward a cleaner, more affordable future. To learn more, visit
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Wetlands protections built an industry for mitigation banking. Rollbacks could erode it.
Paul Stoddard, a principal at environmental consulting firm EnSafe, unlocks the gate to the West Tennessee Wetlands Mitigation Bank in Shelby County, Tenn. on March 11, 2025. EnSafe planted more than 50,000 trees to restore portions of this 250-acre wetland, creating credits for developers to purchase to offset destruction of wetlands elsewhere. (Photo: Karen Pulfer Focht for Tennessee Lookout) Fourth-generation Middle Tennessee cattle farmer Cole Liggett lined up with scientists and environmental advocates in March to urge Tennessee lawmakers not to gut the state's historically strong protections for wetlands. Wetlands protection has been good business for Liggett. In addition to raising cattle, he's a manager at Headwaters Reserve, a firm that developers pay to preserve and restore wetlands and streams so they can destroy them elsewhere, called mitigation banking. If lawmakers follow through on a plan to deregulate an estimated 80% of the state's isolated wetlands, that will upend the industry in Tennessee and drive up prices for developers still required to pay for mitigation, Liggett testified. Liggett works in a growing industry that operates more than 2,500 mitigation banks nationwide, earning an estimated $3.5 billion in revenue in 2019, according to a 2023 study funded by the Ecological Restoration Business Association. The industry is built on demand spurred by the 1972 U.S. Clean Water Act, which requires developers to offset their damage to wetlands by building or restoring wetlands nearby. But recent federal actions to shrink the scope of that law are pushing states to choose how strictly they will regulate wetlands. The consequences of those decisions not only threaten further degradation of land, water and wildlife, but also the fortunes of an industry that has made a big business out of conservation. Environmentalists: Second attempt at wetlands bill would leave 80% vulnerable to development The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA stripped federal protection from wetlands that don't have a surface connection to navigable waters, which means bigger rivers and lakes. President Donald Trump's Administration has vowed to ease regulation, allowing developers to ditch and drain all but the wettest wetlands without permits or mitigation. Environmentalists fear that a recent order to speed up around 600 energy projects nationwide could limit requirements to compensate for the destruction of wetlands. Some states, such as North Carolina and Indiana, have loosened regulations since the Sackett decision. In March, Kentucky lawmakers passed legislation to do the same, overriding Gov. Andy Beshear's veto. Tennessee's wetlands regulations predate the federal Clean Water Act protections passed in the 1970s, but pending legislation could roll back much of that protection, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center. The Tennessee Ecological Restoration Association, which represents Liggett and other mitigation bankers in Tennessee and the southeast, told the Tennessee Lookout that this will directly impact the growing mitigation industry. 'We will see a decrease in demand for credits if aquatic resources are deregulated.' Those concerns aren't shared by everyone in mitigation banking. The national industry is more worried about the defunding of agencies that oversee banks and the prospect of a recession. William Coleman's California-based ecological consulting firm Eco-Asset Solutions and Innovations does much of its business in states that have active wetlands mitigation banking programs. 'My company has not seen any downturn in business,' Coleman, the firm's founder and president, said. 'Landowners are still very interested in the revenue opportunities mitigation banking offers.' Water collects among trees at the West Tennessee Wetlands Mitigation Bank — a wetland restored from its former days as farmland — near the Loosahatchie River in Shelby County, Tenn. on March 11, 2025. (Photo: Karen Pulfer Focht for Tennessee Lookout) Paul Stoddard, a principal at environmental consulting firm EnSafe, looks out on the 54,000 trees the firm planted to restore a wetland in Shelby County, Tenn. on March 11, 2025. EnSafe sells mitigation credits generated by the restoration and preservation of the 250-acre plot to developers. (Photo: Karen Pulfer Focht for Tennessee Lookout) Environmental consulting firm EnSafe used ditches formerly dug by farmers to ensure water collects on restored wetlands in Shelby County, Tenn. The company created what is now a protected wetlands mitigation bank in 2018. (Photo: Karen Pulfer Focht for Tennessee Lookout) Just outside of Memphis, a chorus of frogs on a roughly 250-acre tract of former farmland nearly drowns out the traffic on nearby Austin Peay Highway. Environmental consulting firm EnSafe planted about 54,000 trees on the once flood-prone fields in 2018 and will be responsible for its upkeep until the wetland is mature and healthy – anywhere from seven to 10 years. After that, the land will go to a partnering land trust, where it will be conserved in perpetuity. 'Granted, there is a business piece to what we do, but restoring things to the way they were is also pretty cool … There will be a pocket here forever,' EnSafe principal Paul Stoddard said. The West Tennessee Wetlands Mitigation Bank has sold credits to Amazon to offset a new delivery center in Fayette County. A contractor purchased credits to compensate for a 2-million-square-foot distribution facility called 'Project Iron Giant,' according to records kept by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, one of the federal agencies tasked with overseeing wetlands regulations. TERA estimates that mitigation businesses have poured more than $1 billion into around 130 mitigation bank investments across Tennessee. 'The beauty of mitigation credits is that the developer just writes a check and they're done. All the monitoring and reporting and maintenance and stuff is up to the bank,' EnSafe Senior Ecologist Jimmy Groton said. That process makes mitigation banking a high-risk industry, according to Liggett. Regardless of whether they sell credits, banks are required to maintain their wetlands for at least seven years. The proposed regulatory rollback on Tennessee's wetlands would mean an 80% decrease in demand for mitigation businesses, he testified to Tennessee lawmakers on March 26. 'Such a drastic decrease in the demand after such a high investment … has potential to drive up credit prices as a necessity to avoid potential financial insolvencies,' Liggett said. Hillary Bonham, a principal at environmental consulting firm Baetis Restoration Partners, has experience as both a residential developer and mitigation banker. She told Tennessee lawmakers that the current average price of a credit in Tennessee is around $50,000. Reducing regulations and hampering demand will likely cause the credits that remain to be 'exponentially more expensive when they are needed.' In Georgia, where isolated wetlands are not regulated, a single credit can range from $750,000 to $1.1 million according to the Georgia Alabama Land Trust In Lieu Fee Program, Bonham said. Mitigation banks have been the preferred way to offset wetland destruction for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps since 2008, and the industry has ballooned rapidly since the first entrepreneurial banks were established in the early 1990s. John Paul Woodley, Jr. helped issue the Army Corps of Engineers' 2008 mitigation rule while serving as assistant secretary of the Army for civil works. He's also the immediate past chair of the board of the National Environmental Banking Association, a trade association with around 100 members nationwide. Some people expected to see the Sackett decision have a dramatic impact on mitigation banking, he said, but two limiting factors prevented a panic within the industry. For every wetland that is destroyed, we must see at least three acres of wetlands being built, which would not happen during an emergency process. – Matt Rota, Healthy Gulf First, when the decision was made, developers already well into the permit process could either choose to move forward under the previous terms or go back to the drawing board. Most businesses didn't want to start over, so many pending permits under review by the Corps proceeded as though nothing had happened, Woodley said. Second, states have significant control over the regulation of state waters. 'Many states have just said, 'We don't care about that. We have our own jurisdiction, and we're not limited by what the Clean Water Act says is the waters of the United States … If the U.S. doesn't want to protect those waters, that's fine and dandy. We will,'' Woodley said. Some states have more isolated wetlands than others, he added, and those states will have to decide whether to protect those resources. Woodley thinks they ultimately will. Generally, coastal wetlands will maintain federal protection because of their connection to the navigable waters of the ocean. But experts fear that some swamps and marshlands, once protected, may now face development due to human-made flood-control structures, such as levees or berms, that could be construed as legal separations between wetlands and waters of the U.S. President Trump's declaration of a 'national energy emergency' led the Corps to fast-track review for more than 600 permits. Environmental advocates say that could come at the expense of wetlands. 'Any damages to wetlands due to this emergency must be mitigated properly,' said Matt Rota, senior policy director for Healthy Gulf, a nonprofit advocating for communities along the Gulf Coast. 'For every wetland that is destroyed, we must see at least three acres of wetlands being built, which would not happen during an emergency process.' Those in the industry see other actions by the administration as slowing down environmental permitting, posing a different kind of threat. Trump's first administration made funding cuts to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps that ultimately increased the time it took to review pending permits. Longer review periods can mean less return on investment for landowners, Coleman said. 'That meant there were just not enough bodies to review the applications that were on the table … so there was a tremendous delay,' he said. Coleman's company found that an average two- to three-year review period stretched into four or five years during Trump's first term. We have learned the hard way that each acre of wetlands that is destroyed and replaced with concrete worsens our flooding problems and increases our climate risks. – Kristen Schlemmer, Bayou City Waterkeeper Woodley said demand for mitigation banks is driven largely by development pressure. In Virginia, where he's based, data centers are a big contributor. Some of the mitigation banking industry's biggest customers are state transportation departments and the oil and gas industry—roadways and pipelines often have less flexibility to build elsewhere. 'Anything that takes place that causes an economic downturn, that causes people to retrench and postpone their development plans … that's the risk to the mitigation industry,' Woodley said. 'They had a very difficult time around 2008 … the number of permits applied for declined, and at the same time, the number of the requirements for mitigation took a downturn.' In Gulf States like Louisiana, which is home to 40% of wetlands in the continental U.S. and has sustained 80% of national wetland losses, environmental advocates warn about the consequences of filling in wetlands through emergency permitting without ensuring proper mitigation. 'We have learned the hard way that each acre of wetlands that is destroyed and replaced with concrete worsens our flooding problems and increases our climate risks,' said Kristen Schlemmer, senior legal director of the Bayou City Waterkeeper, a nonprofit working to protect communities impacted by water pollution and flooding in Houston. Some wetlands mitigation banking businesses have begun to diversify their offerings to include conservation-based credits for protecting the habitats of endangered species, carbon sequestration or nutrient banking to prevent excessive runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus. This story is part of the series Down the Drain from the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an independent reporting collaborative based at the University of Missouri in partnership with Report for America, with major funding from the Walton Family Foundation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Border security or mass deportation? Arizona leaders clash over money for local law enforcement
Border Patrol agents intercept immigrants near Eagle Pass, Texas, in August 2019. Photo by Jaime Rodriguez | U.S. Customs and Border Protection A political climate dominated by concern over border security has put Gov. Katie Hobbs and Arizona Republicans on the same side, with both pushing to increase funding for law enforcement agencies that tackle border related offenses as progressive organizations and Democratic lawmakers are fiercely opposing the move. In her executive budget proposal, Hobbs earmarked $23.2 million for the Local Border Support grant program, a 36% boost over last year's $17 million allocation. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are advancing their own measure to increase the fund to $50 million. The GOP bid to nearly triple the fund's size has drawn criticism from immigrant rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers, who fear it could bankroll President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign in Arizona. Opponents say the allocation's underlying language is too broad and leaves the door open for Arizona law enforcement officials to carry out the federal government's anti-immigrant agenda. The proposal that sets aside the $50 million is House Bill 2606, which directs the Arizona Department of Public Safety to divvy up the money for police departments and sheriffs offices to fund officer positions that 'deter and apprehend' people suspected of 'drug trafficking, human smuggling, illegal immigration and other border related crimes.' Some of the funds are also intended to help cities and towns pay for prosecuting and detaining people under those same charges. Jodi Liggett, a lobbyist for progressive group Living United for Change in Arizona, urged lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee who were considering the bill on Tuesday not to make it easier for the current federal administration to recruit local law enforcement agencies. '(The bill) will use state resources to perpetuate the deeply flawed immigration enforcement system of the U.S., one that has been rife with human atrocities and blatant legal violations,' she said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Liggett pointed out that the White House has already made headlines for violating the civil rights protections of people detained by immigration officials and has mobilized even century old laws to speed up deportations. Earlier this month, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to bypass due process protections built into the immigration system and deport 238 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, without any due process. Attorneys for some of those deported say their clients had no ties to the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, but were instead deported simply because they had tattoos. Liggett called on lawmakers to use the money to instead bolster initiatives that benefit Arizonans. 'Our state has a moral duty to prioritize taxpayer funds to make much needed investments towards schools, health care and affordable housing, not appropriating dollars and pushing policies that target people based on race and status,' she said. Supporters, however, argue that the bill is only eliciting criticism because of the current political moment, not because it carries with it any inherent threat. Jen Marson, speaking on behalf of the Arizona Sheriff's Association, which is in favor of the allocation increase, said during a March 17 Senate Military Affairs and Border Security Committee meeting that the same language has been used since at least 2019. She noted that the money doesn't go toward enforcing immigration laws, but has historically helped pay for local task forces that address drug interdiction, bomb squads, canine units and inmate housing costs associated with people convicted of violating state laws around drug smuggling or human trafficking. And the unusually high allocation is simply the Sheriff's Association trying to get their foot in the door for budget negotiations, not a bid to adopt federal responsibilities. Voters, Marson added, overwhelmingly sided with increasing border security in November and the Sheriff's Association hopes that mandate can lead to more funding. Roughly 63% of Arizonans last year agreed to punish migrants who cross the southern border anywhere but at an official port of entry with a misdemeanor via Proposition 314, called the Secure the Border Act. While that portion of the initiative is frozen until the U.S. Supreme Court rules that states have the right to enforce federal immigration laws, other provisions creating new penalties for undocumented people who submit false documentation to apply for jobs or public benefits and mandating severe punishments for people found guilty of the sale of lethal fentanyl are in effect. 'The sheriffs felt that, because of the clear will of voters in November regarding that proposition, that this was the time to ask for additional funding, and we had the will of the voters on our side,' Marson said. Republican lawmakers have also defended the increased appropriation as intended to provide the funding that was missing from Prop. 314. When the initiative was first being considered by lawmakers, multiple law enforcement officials warned they would need more resources to enforce its mandates, especially if the provision making it a state crime to cross Arizona's southern border anywhere but at an official port of entry is ever made effective in the future by the country's highest court rolling back its decision to reserve the power to implement immigration laws for the federal government. Doing so could prove pivotal in whether the law remains on the books. Voters in 2004 amended the Arizona Constitution to require ballot measures that will increase state spending to include a source of funding other than the state's general fund. Using any part of the $50 million to pay for actions taken under Prop. 314 could set the initiative up for a constitutional challenge. Republicans appear to realize the potential pitfall. In the bill's latest committee hearing on Tuesday, Rep. Quang Nguyen, R-Prescott Valley, who was previously vocal about the allocation helping to cover the costs of Prop. 314, dropped that argument, saying it has nothing to do with the ballot measure and only seeks to beef up the fund that has existed for nearly a decade. The bill cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee with only Republican support, and is next slated to go before the entire Senate. The majority of Democratic lawmakers have opposed the funding allocation, while still defending Hobbs' smaller increase. Just one Democrat, Rep. Kevin Volk, who represents a swing district in Tucson, crossed the aisle to join Republicans in voting for the $50 million increase, saying his constituents are concerned about border security. Progressive organizations have been sharply critical of the freshman lawmaker, and said they worried his support could prove decisive during budget talks. 'We know that Democrats don't have power at this moment to get progressive policies to the governor's desk but where it does count in this moment is the state budget,' Gina Mendez, LUCHA's organizing director, told the Mirror during a March 3 protest of anti-immigrant bills. While Democrats are outnumbered by Republicans in both legislative chambers, and have little say in what bills advance, they do have more influence during budget negotiations because Hobbs has said bipartisanship is a key factor in deciding what she approves. And Democratic leadership is opposed to the $50 million budget increase. House Minority Leader Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson, highlighted the potential constitutional conflicts on March 5, when the bill was approved by the full House of Representatives. 'I don't feel that money needs to go to support a proposition that is unconstitutional,' Gutierrez said. 'We really need that money in our public schools, and for housing and for making things affordable for our communities. To spend $50 million for law enforcement on an unconstitutional proposition is wrong.' The Tucson Democrat said she agreed with critics that the money could be used to facilitate mass deportations in Arizona, and said even if the language is tightened or the amount is reduced, she doesn't consider it a priority. 'I want to fully fund K-12 schools, our higher education,' Gutierrez, a former teacher, said.'This would be at the very bottom of our list.' Similarly, Sen. Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, who leads the Democrats in the Senate, said her party is uninterested in seeing the $50 million included in the final state budget agreement. 'None of us are advocating in the budget talks for money that would be used for this purpose. We are firmly not interested in advocating for that kind of budgetary amount,' she said, during a rally for immigrant rights on March 17 that, along with other border security bills, featured criticism of the allocation as yet another way to fund deportations. If it does end up in the budget, she added, Democrats intend to fight for narrower language. Sundareshan acknowledged that Hobbs, too, has signaled an interest in ramping up funding for the law enforcement grant program, but said that the governor has been careful to keep the money in the realm of drug interdiction. 'Gov. Hobbs has been very intentional about directing that money towards other border safety measures like fentanyl and the SAFE program, which are intentionally not to support the kind of enforcement of these kinds of federal immigration laws,' she said, referring to Hobbs' Stopping Arizona's Fentanyl Epidemic taskforce. Hobb has focused her border security efforts on boosting local drug interdiction instead of wading into the criminalization of unlawful immigration. She has been vocally opposed to Trump's mass deportation plans, and vetoed anti-immigrant proposals sent to her desk. But she has also shifted to the right on immigration policy as governor, moving away from early pro-immigrant initiatives like a scholarship fund for Dreamers and supporting hostile federal legislation like the Laken Riley Act, which authorizes the indefinite detention of undocumented people accused of low level crimes, like shoplifting, in a bid to portray herself as tough on the border ahead of the 2026 election. Her stance on the $50 million allocation is unclear; despite multiple requests for comment, her spokesman, Christian Slater, was silent on the bill's fate or the criticism against it, saying only that 'the final amount will be negotiated in the budget.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Voters added abortion rights to the Constitution. Republicans want abortion pill restrictions.
Photo via Getty Images Republicans in the Arizona Legislature want to put increased restrictions on medication abortions, in direct contradiction to a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion that voters approved in November. Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, claimed during a Wednesday Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee meeting that there was no way to know exactly why voters favored the Arizona Abortion Access Act. More than 61% of those who voted in the Grand Canyon State's 2024 general election chose to enshrine the right to abortion into the state constitution. But that hasn't stopped Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee from voting for House Bill 2681, which would impose a long list of new restrictions and requirements on those seeking medication-induced abortions. Finchem and Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Prescott, both argued that HB2681 would protect unborn children who cannot protect themselves. Pro-choice advocates described it as a backhanded way to place additional hurdles in the way of abortion access, defying the will of the voters, and making the most widely used way to carry out an abortion more difficult. 'I do hope you respect the will of the voters,' said Jodi Liggett, a lobbyist for Reproductive Freedom for All. 'They've spoken loudly, and they don't want politicians involved in their access to care.' In response, Finchem told Liggett that voters only indicated whether they were for or against the Arizona Abortion Access Act, and that no data existed to explain why, adding that it 'disturbs' him to hear Liggett make 'missassertions' about voters' motivations. Liggett answered that the abortion rights campaign did extensive polling before gathering signatures to put Prop. 139 on the ballot, and those polls indicated that voters don't want politicians making medical decisions for them. The Arizona Abortion Access Act, as the constitutional amendment was officially known, prohibits any law, regulation or policy that would deny, restrict or interfere with the fundamental right to abortion before fetal viability (generally around 24 weeks) unless it is for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of a person seeking an abortion, consistent with clinical practice standards and evidence-based medicine. It also prohibits any law or regulation that would interfere with access to abortion after fetal viability if the patient's health care provider believes it is necessary to protect the patient's life, physical or mental health. Additionally, Prop. 139 bars any law that penalizes a person for aiding or assisting someone in exercising their right to an abortion. House Bill 2681, sponsored by Republican Rep. Rachel Keshel, a member of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, would place numerous restrictions on abortions prior to fetal viability. Keshel's bill would require a doctor who prescribes medication to induce abortion to examine the patient in person, test the patient's blood and inform them of the 'possible physical and psychological aftereffects and side effects' of taking the medication. The physician would also be compelled to inform the patient that they 'may see the remains of the unborn child in the process of completing the abortion.' The proposed legislation would also force the doctor to schedule a follow-up visit with the patient, to make 'all reasonable' efforts to ensure the patient attends that appointment and include a record of those attempts in the patient's chart. A medical provider who violates HB2681 could be held civilly liable by the patient who obtained the abortion — their parents if they're a minor — or by the person who impregnated them. Any of them could file a lawsuit against the physician to recover monetary damages for psychological, emotional and physical injuries, statutory damages up to $5,000 and attorney fees. Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for Planned Parent Advocates of Arizona, called HB2681 'fear mongering based on junk science.' She accused Republican lawmakers on Wednesday of trying to make the process 'as difficult and scary as possible to put abortion out of reach for as many Arizonans as possible.' As abortion restrictions have been for decades, Keshel's bill is couched in language about patient safety. It ignores that the drugs widely used to induce abortion in early pregnancy, mifepristone and misoprostol, are considered safe for use up to 10 weeks of gestation, according to the FDA. Elizabeth Lee, a reproductive medicine expert who spoke on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All, said that the measure would make it more difficult for women in rural areas to get abortions since in-person visits to a physician could be out of reach for them. Currently, doctors can prescribe medication for abortion through a telehealth visit. If doctors' offices are too far away, or appointments aren't available, rural women could be pushed past 11 weeks of gestation and have to undergo a more invasive surgical abortion that comes with an increased risk of complications. Lee added that the blood testing requirement in the proposed legislation, for RH incompatibility, was completely unnecessary. RH incompatibility is a potentially dangerous condition that happens when a mother's immune system attacks the red blood cells of her fetus, but Lee said that patients typically aren't treated for it until 20 weeks of gestation. Before voting to forward House Bill 2681 on to the full Senate, Rogers said that the legislature should 'protect those that cannot protect themselves' adding that everyone will have to answer to God for their decisions. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
How a community lifted up Greenfield to a TSSAA girls basketball state championship title
MURFREESBORO ― Tori Liggett's cell phone lit up after Greenfield's TSSAA girls basketball state tournament semifinal win over Richland Friday. It was a flood of well-wishing text messages that overwhelmed the Greenfield coach, but one in particular felt poignant as Liggett sat with a teary-eyed team answering questions of how the Lady Jackets captured the Class 1A state championship, beating Van Buren, 49-46, Saturday at MTSU's Murphy Center. Liggett spent 15 years as Greenfield Middle's basketball coach. A former player on her eighth-grade team, Abbey McDaniel Webb, reminded Liggett about that middle school team's motto for that season Webb had embroidered on a quilt made out of Greenfield High T-shirts "It was 'Finish it,' " Liggett said. "That's what she put on (the quilt) and in the text message that she sent to me and she put on Facebook. That was our motto for her eighth-grade year and I say that was our motto (Saturday). And they did." It's the first state championship for Greenfield (30-6) since 2018 and only the second title in program history, but this championship will resonate in small community that holds tradition close to its heart. Greenfield fans crowded the upper concourse, passing around the championship trophy and taking pictures, anticipating the police escort that will accompany the team back home. For the fans that weren't able to make the more than two-hour trip, there was a watch party at Greenfield High's gym. Former Greenfield boys basketball coach Don Durden has been fixture on the girls team's bench for the past few years. In his 80s, Durden ― who won Greenfield boys' only state title in 1984 ― was unable to make the trip. "We're going to pay him visit," she said. "We've got a hat waiting for him." Greenfield trailed for much of the game but a flurry of six straight points to start the fourth quarter pulled the Lady Jackets ahead, led by the usually reserve and composed sophomore Rayanna Fisher. Fisher let her emotions show during the tournament. She had 14 points in the championship game and was named MVP. Her 23 points helped Greenfield escape Richland, 47-40, in the semifinal and added 12 points in the quarterfinal win over North Greene. "Usually I'm pretty calm but I know if somebody does something good out there, I feel like somebody has to have that energy and then the energy will keeps us rolling," said Fisher. Fisher's transition layup with 54 seconds reclaimed the lead for the Lady Jackets, 47-46, and she knocked down a pair of free throws with 15 seconds to push the lead to three. Van Buren's final 3-point attempt fell short as Greenfield collected the rebound and ran out the clock. Tears streamed down both cheeks for guard Brenley Little. Her older sister, Makayla, was part of the 2018 team that beat Summertown for the 1A title. "It means a lot to me," Brenley Little said, with her voice cracking. "She didn't get to come today but I know she would be proud of me. I always looked up to her." Liggett, in her fifth season as Greenfield's coach, took three years off between the middle school and high school coaching duties. But those 15 years teaching the game to sixth, seventh and eighth-graders brought Saturday's moment full-circle. TSSAA GIRLS BASKETBALL: State tournament brackets, schedule, scores for 2025 championships Webb, who also played at Greenfield High, graduating in 2012, brought Crumbl cookies to the team Friday night. "We've been fed, we've been pampered and loved through the whole tournament and season," Liggett said. "It would be sad if you came up here and won something that was this special and didn't have a town to share it with." Reach sports writer George Robinson at and on the X platform (formerly Twitter) @Cville_Sports. This article originally appeared on Jackson Sun: TSSAA girls basketball state tournament 2025: Greenfield win 1A title
