Editing coverage of legal proceedings
Jacob Richey edited factually and stylistically incorrect wording of Missouri legal proceedings in a story for digital publication. See the unedited copy from the reporter with Richey’s commentary and reasoning in bold italics under each paragraph, with points of reference highlighted. Then, find the final, published copy from KOMU 8’s website.Unedited draft
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced on Saturday that the City of St. Louis' Circuit Court approved his motion to dismiss challenges after pro-choice activists sued Bailey to dismantle Missouri's pro-life laws on Friday, according to a news release from Bailey's office.
Leading the story with the Missouri attorney general’s name puts the focus on him as a character, when the story is about the court’s action against challenges to Missouri’s abortion ban, so I restructured to put that information first. Plus, the use of “pro-choice,” “dismantle” and “pro-life” are politically charged and go against Associated Press style. I included the activists’ argument in the lede to give context to the case.
Missouri's law preventing pregnant people from obtaining abortions at all stages of pregnancy took effect six minutes after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the news release said.
This sentence breaks AP style with the use of “pregnant people” because it is not specifically referring to people who aren’t women who are pregnant; plus, it’s wordy. The bite about “six minutes” comes from a news release from the attorney general and was meant to boast how quickly the state banned abortion, so I removed it because it was originally politically charged.
There were 14 Missouri faith leaders that played a part in challenging the state's abortion ban as a violation of church-state separation. The case was filed against this statute as well as others in January 2023.
The court agreed to dismiss ten of the eleven challenges the activists brought on June 30, 2023, according to the press release by the Attorney General's office.
I corrected AP style errors in numerals, capitalization and passive voice throughout the story.
Petitioners all sued in their capacity as Missouri taxpayers alleging certain statutory provisions violate their rights under Article I, Section 5, 6 and 7 of the Missouri Constitution, according to court documents.
This wording is not clear and appears mostly as legal jargon that adds an obstacle for readers in understanding the story. I simplified the wording to what the petitioners alleged.
In addition, Petitioner Reverend Molly Housh Gordon sued based on the alleged substantial risk of harm she faces as a woman of reproductive age arising from the challenged statutory provisions.
"We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision, and will be discussing next steps with our faith leader clients," the news release by the faith leader's legal team said. "Missouri’s abortion ban is a direct attack on the separation of church and state, religious freedom and reproductive freedom. Missouri lawmakers made clear that they were imposing their personal religious beliefs on all Missourians when they enacted these laws. We remain committed to restoring abortion access in Missouri.”
The clergy plaintiffs from seven diverse denominations are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), the law firm Arnold & Porter, and local civil rights lawyer Denise Lieberman.
The lawsuit alleges that Missouri’s abortion ban and other restrictions violate the state constitution by enshrining lawmakers’ personal religious beliefs about abortion in House Bill No. 126 and Senate Bill 5. One of the provisions of H.B. 126 was a “trigger ban” that prohibited all abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, the faith leader's news release said.
In addition to the State of Missouri, the defendants named in the lawsuit include state and local officials responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Parson; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey; Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Acting Director Paula F. Nickelson; and several officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, according to the faith leaders news release.
The court order can be read here.
Hyperlinking on a single, nondescriptive word like “here” violates search-engine optimization and web accessibility guidelines because the anchor text does not indicate what it will navigate the user to.
Leading the story with the Missouri attorney general’s name puts the focus on him as a character, when the story is about the court’s action against challenges to Missouri’s abortion ban, so I restructured to put that information first. Plus, the use of “pro-choice,” “dismantle” and “pro-life” are politically charged and go against Associated Press style. I included the activists’ argument in the lede to give context to the case.
Missouri's law preventing pregnant people from obtaining abortions at all stages of pregnancy took effect six minutes after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the news release said.
This sentence breaks AP style with the use of “pregnant people” because it is not specifically referring to people who aren’t women who are pregnant; plus, it’s wordy. The bite about “six minutes” comes from a news release from the attorney general and was meant to boast how quickly the state banned abortion, so I removed it because it was originally politically charged.
There were 14 Missouri faith leaders that played a part in challenging the state's abortion ban as a violation of church-state separation. The case was filed against this statute as well as others in January 2023.
The court agreed to dismiss ten of the eleven challenges the activists brought on June 30, 2023, according to the press release by the Attorney General's office.
I corrected AP style errors in numerals, capitalization and passive voice throughout the story.
Petitioners all sued in their capacity as Missouri taxpayers alleging certain statutory provisions violate their rights under Article I, Section 5, 6 and 7 of the Missouri Constitution, according to court documents.
This wording is not clear and appears mostly as legal jargon that adds an obstacle for readers in understanding the story. I simplified the wording to what the petitioners alleged.
In addition, Petitioner Reverend Molly Housh Gordon sued based on the alleged substantial risk of harm she faces as a woman of reproductive age arising from the challenged statutory provisions.
"We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision, and will be discussing next steps with our faith leader clients," the news release by the faith leader's legal team said. "Missouri’s abortion ban is a direct attack on the separation of church and state, religious freedom and reproductive freedom. Missouri lawmakers made clear that they were imposing their personal religious beliefs on all Missourians when they enacted these laws. We remain committed to restoring abortion access in Missouri.”
The clergy plaintiffs from seven diverse denominations are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), the law firm Arnold & Porter, and local civil rights lawyer Denise Lieberman.
The lawsuit alleges that Missouri’s abortion ban and other restrictions violate the state constitution by enshrining lawmakers’ personal religious beliefs about abortion in House Bill No. 126 and Senate Bill 5. One of the provisions of H.B. 126 was a “trigger ban” that prohibited all abortions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, the faith leader's news release said.
In addition to the State of Missouri, the defendants named in the lawsuit include state and local officials responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Parson; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey; Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Acting Director Paula F. Nickelson; and several officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, according to the faith leaders news release.
The court order can be read here.
Hyperlinking on a single, nondescriptive word like “here” violates search-engine optimization and web accessibility guidelines because the anchor text does not indicate what it will navigate the user to.
Edited copy
The 22nd Circuit Court dismissed challenges to Missouri's abortion ban on Friday after 14 abortion-rights activists sued the state in January 2023, arguing the abortion ban violated the separation of church and state.
The city of St. Louis' circuit court dismissed 10 of 11 counts of the lawsuit in June 2023 and dismissed the final count Friday.
Missouri's law banning abortion outside of medical emergencies at all stages of pregnancy took effect in June 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Fourteen Missouri faith leaders challenged the state's abortion ban as a violation of church-state separation and filed the lawsuit, the Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri, in January 2023.
The petitioners alleged the abortion ban violates their rights under Article 1, Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Missouri Constitution, which encompass religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
In addition, petitioner the Rev. Molly Housh Gordon sued based on the alleged substantial risk of harm she faces from the law as a woman of reproductive age, according to court documents.
The petitioners argued that the abortion law's introductory clause, which says "Almighty God is the author of life" as a recognition of a natural right to life, violates the Missouri Constitution's establishment clause, which prevents the government from favoring or establishing a religion. The court wrote in its decision that this language does not violate the constitution because it does not impose substantive restrictions.
The court noted in its decision that Missouri law says the "life of each human being begins at conception" and the abortion law was meant to be interpreted with that in mind. The petitioners argued the idea that life begins at conception is a religious belief, and enforcing an abortion ban based on that is an establishment of religion, violating the constitution.
"The court does not accept the petitioners' argument that the determination that human life begins at conception is strictly a religious one," Judge Jason Sengheiser wrote in the decision. "While the determination that life begins at conception may run counter to some religious beliefs, it is not itself necessarily a religious belief. As such, it does not prevent all men and women from worshipping Almighty God or not worshipping according to the dictates of their own consciences..."
The faith leaders' legal team said in a statement it "respectfully disagree(s)" with the court's decision.
"Missouri’s abortion ban is a direct attack on the separation of church and state, religious freedom and reproductive freedom," the faith leaders' legal team wrote. "Missouri lawmakers made clear that they were imposing their personal religious beliefs on all Missourians when they enacted these laws. We remain committed to restoring abortion access in Missouri.”
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with state and local officials accused of being responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Acting Director Paula F. Nickelson and several officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, according to the statement.
Bailey praised the court's decision in a statement issued from his office Friday night.
"Today is a major win for women and their unborn children as a Missouri court sided with our office yet again in our efforts to defend the sanctity of life," Bailey said in the statement. "Having lost a child, this issue is personal for me. My office will continue to use every tool at its disposal to protect the unborn. Our children are worth the fight."
The clergy plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women's Law Center, the law firm Arnold & Porter and local civil rights lawyer Denise Lieberman, according to their statement.
The city of St. Louis' circuit court dismissed 10 of 11 counts of the lawsuit in June 2023 and dismissed the final count Friday.
Missouri's law banning abortion outside of medical emergencies at all stages of pregnancy took effect in June 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Fourteen Missouri faith leaders challenged the state's abortion ban as a violation of church-state separation and filed the lawsuit, the Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri, in January 2023.
The petitioners alleged the abortion ban violates their rights under Article 1, Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Missouri Constitution, which encompass religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
In addition, petitioner the Rev. Molly Housh Gordon sued based on the alleged substantial risk of harm she faces from the law as a woman of reproductive age, according to court documents.
The petitioners argued that the abortion law's introductory clause, which says "Almighty God is the author of life" as a recognition of a natural right to life, violates the Missouri Constitution's establishment clause, which prevents the government from favoring or establishing a religion. The court wrote in its decision that this language does not violate the constitution because it does not impose substantive restrictions.
The court noted in its decision that Missouri law says the "life of each human being begins at conception" and the abortion law was meant to be interpreted with that in mind. The petitioners argued the idea that life begins at conception is a religious belief, and enforcing an abortion ban based on that is an establishment of religion, violating the constitution.
"The court does not accept the petitioners' argument that the determination that human life begins at conception is strictly a religious one," Judge Jason Sengheiser wrote in the decision. "While the determination that life begins at conception may run counter to some religious beliefs, it is not itself necessarily a religious belief. As such, it does not prevent all men and women from worshipping Almighty God or not worshipping according to the dictates of their own consciences..."
The faith leaders' legal team said in a statement it "respectfully disagree(s)" with the court's decision.
"Missouri’s abortion ban is a direct attack on the separation of church and state, religious freedom and reproductive freedom," the faith leaders' legal team wrote. "Missouri lawmakers made clear that they were imposing their personal religious beliefs on all Missourians when they enacted these laws. We remain committed to restoring abortion access in Missouri.”
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with state and local officials accused of being responsible for enforcing or ensuring compliance with the abortion ban, including Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Acting Director Paula F. Nickelson and several officials at the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, according to the statement.
Bailey praised the court's decision in a statement issued from his office Friday night.
"Today is a major win for women and their unborn children as a Missouri court sided with our office yet again in our efforts to defend the sanctity of life," Bailey said in the statement. "Having lost a child, this issue is personal for me. My office will continue to use every tool at its disposal to protect the unborn. Our children are worth the fight."
The clergy plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Women's Law Center, the law firm Arnold & Porter and local civil rights lawyer Denise Lieberman, according to their statement.