Keith Reisinger Kindle
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS - A woman suing an abortionist for allegedly badly botching an abortion at his Champaign clinic will need to publicly identify herself if she wishes to continue with her case, because too many news pieces, including interviews with her and her lawyer, have been produced about her case, unfairly victimizing the man she is suing, a Champaign County judge ruled.
And nearly a month after the ruling, the woman and her attorney have not yet indicated to the court or otherwise indicated if they will appeal the ruling, abide by the judge's decision, or abandon the case.
On Aug. 26, Champaign County Circuit Judge Jason Bohm ruled in favor of the request of Keith Reisinger-Kindle to force the as-yet unidentified woman to identify herself in court documents or abandon her legal claims.
"Difficult as it may be courts are tased with striking a proper balance that allows for a fair playing field for all sides," Bohm wrote in his order. "Given the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that the plaintiff and her attorney have used publicity as a sword against the defendants. Those efforts make it inequitable for the plaintiff to simultaneously be given a shield from the same publicity."
The woman, presently identified only as Jane Doe, filed suit in March in Champaign County court against Reisinger-Kindle and his clinic, Equity Clinic. The lawsuit accused both of medical negligence and other counts.
The woman is represented in the action by attorney Richard Craig, of Chicago.
The lawsuit asserts Doe suffered severe pain and required surgery to repair damage allegedly caused by a botched abortion at Equity Clinic in 2023. According to court documents, the clinic also allegedly largely ignored her pleas for help amid her pain and bleeding within the days after the botched abortion procedure.
According to the complaint, the woman ultimately took herself to a hospital in the Indianapolis area, near her residence, where scans revealed "the remains of 'half of a deceased pre-born human being' ... in her right pelvis," including "pieces of the fetal skull that were adherent to the patient's intestine," which were "removed piecemeal" during surgery.
According to the the complaint, the discoveries came despite claims by Reisinger-Kindle that he had personally "visibly inspected" the "products of conception" and had "confirmed" the abortion was "complete."
According to the complaint, the day after the surgery to remove the "fetal remains," the surgeon had called Kindle to report the results of the surgery. However, according to the complaint, "Kindle refused to answer any questions or provide any information" to the surgeon about the woman's abortion, "claiming lack of consent" from the woman.
The lawsuit seeks more than $50,000 per count.
Kindle and Equity Clinic have gained notoriety in recent years, as Illinois led by Gov. JB Pritzker has sought to expand abortion access in the state, partially in response to efforts by most surrounding states to restrict and regulate abortions.
Kindle, for instance, was prominently featured in an article in 2023 in the Chicago Tribune, in which he was largely regaled for traveling to Illinois on the weekends to perform abortions, after Ohio moved to largely ban abortions after 6 weeks of gestation.
According to the article, Kindle said the Champaign clinic performs abortions on women who traveled from throughout the U.S., seeking to take advantage of Illinois' pro-abortion legal environment.
According to the article, more than 60% of women who undergo abortions at Equity Clinic are in their second trimester.
The clinic reportedly also offers training for other abortion doctors from throughout the country.
Reisinger Kindle also served until June 30 as a professor at the medical school at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.
Since filing her lawsuit against Reisinger Kindle, the woman has sought permission from the court to continue her lawsuit anonymously, out of concern for her privacy.
While the judge initially granted that request, Reisinger Kindle challenged her right to do so, saying the decision by her and her attorney to take her story public through the press, generating headlines throughout Illinois and the U.S., has harmed Reisinger Kindle and jeopardized his ability to defend himself in the case.
Reisinger Kindle argued that claims related to abortion should not be given the same level of privacy considerations afforded to plaintiffs bringing lawsuits over such claims as sexual assault or domestic violence, among others typically shielded.
The "one-sided approach" sought by the plaintiff in this case "is fundamentally unfair and undermines the appearance of judicial neutrality," Reisinger Kindle argued.
Over the continued objections of the woman, Bohm sided with Reisinger Kindle, essentially finding the woman and her lawyer forced his hand by giving too many interviews, leading to the publication of too many news stories that painted Reisinger Kindle in a negative light, in a bid to try the case in the press, as well as in court.
The judge asserted in his ruling that there is "not an online repository of complaints" discoverable by the public. Thus, he reasoned, someone had to drive publicity for the case to lead to the level of news coverage the case has enjoyed, to date.
However, The Record obtained copies of all documents filed in the case, including the complaint and the judge's most recent order online, without traveling to the courthouse or any assistance from Craig or any other third party.
Nonetheless, the judge said: "Without question the publicity of this case was premeditated by someone and required the participation of the filer of the complaint, likely before the complaint was ever filed. It is highly unusual for articles to appear, at publications across the globe, within days of a filing without coordinated announcement of the filing. Even Pulitzer Prize winning journalists do not simply come across an otherwise obscure filing in Champaign County and interview the pseudonymously named plaintiff, her attorney, and one of her doctors within 24 hours of the filing.
"It is difficult to imagine how a reporter would discern who the plaintiff was or how to reach her for an interview without Mr. Craig's involvement...
"The publicity associated with this case and its timing required the plaintiff and her lawyer's active participation. The lack of candor in how the publicity of this case was generated cuts against exercising discretion in the plaintiff's favor," Bohm wrote.
While ruling against the woman, Bohm said he would put his order on hold, for now, to give her and Craig the chance to appeal his decision and see if an appellate court may agree he overreached.
Craig did not respond to a request from The Record for comment on the decision or questions about a potential appeal.
