Abortion doctor wants patient, whose suit says he left half a fetus behind, named publicly | Opinion
Maybe you remember the story I wrote in March about an Indiana woman alleging in a lawsuit that an Illinois abortion doctor serving many Missouri women had left half a fetus behind.
The woman, who went to him to end her pregnancy at 22 or 23 weeks, told me then that Dr. Keith Reisinger-Kindle of Equity Clinic in Champaign, Illinois kept telling her when she called him in excruciating pain after the procedure that she just needed to take some Tylenol, or a laxative.
No, she actually needed emergency surgery. According to one of her Indianapolis surgeons, who also spoke to me in March, what the operating team found was, “this — baby in the pelvis. This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen at surgery and I’ve been doing this for over 30 years.”
Last month, Reisinger-Kindle was reprimanded and fined $5,000 by the Illinois Dept. of Financial and Professional Regulation in connection with this case.
Now, this doctor has asked the court that the patient not be granted anonymity in pursuing her legal action — basically, arguing that since his name has been all over everywhere, then so should hers be. He’s also filed for a gag order, so he wants her to both step forward and be silenced.
The doctor’s motion was in response to a motion from her counsel, who filed for continued anonymity in the case, as required in order to keep her name out of court records.
This is part of the response from the doctor’s team: “Plaintiff has chosen to publicly name both Defendants — Dr. Keith Reisinger-Kindle, the founder and medical director of Equity Clinic in Champaign, Illinois, and Equity Clinic Itself,” his motion says.
“Plaintiff seeks to litigate publicly and by name against these individuals and entities while attempting to shield her own identity. This one-sided approach is fundamentally unfair and undermines the appearance of judicial neutrality. … When a plaintiff seeks to publicly challenge reproductive healthcare providers in court — especially in a matter of statewide media interest — transparency in the proceedings is paramount. Having already leveraged multiple high-profile media outlets to elevate her narrative and target named providers, Plaintiff should not now be permitted to evade the transparency and accountability that open litigation requires.”
I understand this as a human reaction. And as a legal tactic, maybe it seems like a promising way to get her to drop her suit. But from a doctor, it stuns me.
This woman had an elective, late-term abortion. Should her name be made public, he’d be putting her personal safety at serious risk. And if the surgeon I spoke to is right, he’d be doing that for a second time.
With all of the truly horrible political violence flying around in all directions, no.
Here is one part of one email I got after my March story ran:
“23 weeks? THAT IS A BABY. This piece of s--- woman was so far along in her pregnancy, it quite possibly could have lived outside the womb. She DELIBERATELY murdered this BABY. She had this LIVE baby’s limbs ripped from its body. This baby was tortured to death. It suffered a HORRIFIC and HEINOUS death. WENT THROUGH UNIMAGINABLE PAIN. THIS WOMAN IS NOT A VICTIM. SHE IS A MONSTER. SHE MURDERED THIS BABY. HOW DARE YOU TWIST THE TRUTH INTO YOUR OWN POLITICAL AGENDA . . . Clearly, you have a disconnect from reality. You delusional freak.”
Can you read that and tell me this woman would not be in physical danger? Judge, I really hope you do not make her name public.
The doctor’s name, on the other hand, was already public, and made more so by the glowing profile of him that ran in the Chicago Tribune two months after this woman’s procedure went horribly wrong in April of 2023.
In that profile, he is quoted as saying this: “You have to keep people safe. Your staff and your patients should be safe. Nothing else matters.”
When I wrote about him, it was to inform prospective Missouri patients. And I’m going to say now that I was right to do so.
