What's missing here?

How is it possible to write a story about Speaker Ron Richard's (new) desire to pass autism insurance legislation without mentioning the fact that Richard personally killed legislation on the matter in the just-ended legislative session?  A new AP story ignores this key fact, and leaves it up to the reader to guess why said legislation was "among the bills that did not pass during the legislative session."

"We just left the job undone," Richard says, which is true enough. The Speaker shut the whole thing down in early April, six weeks before the end of session. 

On April 7, Richard's communications director, Kristen Blanchard, "admitted the House will not be taking up the [autism insurance] bill at the direction of Richard." This is supported by GOP Sen. Scott Rupp's statement this week that Richard and his leadership blocked the legislation, despite overwhelming bipartisan support from rank-and-file members. In fact, the only movement on the autism insurance issue seems to have come in the past few days -- after Rupp's comments were published.

Wouldn't Richard's role in the demise of this session's legislation be a relevant detail for readers?