Warning: The following article contains upsetting and graphic content. Reader discretion is advised. 

An Illinois circuit court judge heard oral arguments Aug. 14 regarding whether a woman who sued after an abortionist allegedly left more than half of her unborn baby inside her can remain anonymous during the malpractice case.

Zeale previously reported that the woman sought a surgical abortion at Dr. Keith Reisinger-Kindle’s Equity Clinic in Champaign, Illinois, in April 2023. She was between 22 and 23 weeks pregnant at the time. After she experienced pain in her abdomen following the abortion, she went to the emergency room and later underwent a CT scan, which discovered that most of her unborn child was still in her uterus. The woman had to have surgery to remove the rest of her baby’s body.

The woman sued Reisinger-Kindle for malpractice on March 21, 2025. She remained anonymous in the complaint and has requested to remain anonymous to protect her privacy and health care history as the lawsuit continues. However, the abortionist’s defense attorney, Kimberly Flanigan, is asking Judge Jason Bohm to rule that she cannot use a pseudonym, arguing that revealing her name would create a level playing field throughout the litigation of the case.

During oral arguments, Bohm focused on media coverage of the lawsuit, questioning whether the woman qualifies for anonymity given the public interest in her case. He also pointed out that several articles contain details about the woman that were not included in the complaint, such as her race, age, and income. Bohm hypothesized that the fact that the press apparently obtained extra information about the case does not align with the woman’s desire to remain private.

In response, her attorney, Richard Craig, said that neither he nor his client have solicited media attention. Craig agreed to Zeale's interview request in June and answered questions about the attempt to release the woman’s name.

The woman spoke about her experience to a reporter at the Kansas City Star but requested that her name be kept private. Craig maintained that forcing the woman to reveal her identity would subject her to potential backlash and danger.

Flanigan argued that the court is a public forum, meriting full transparency of names, and said she feared the jury pool would be tainted by extensive media coverage of the case. She also argued that the woman went through an elective procedure and voluntarily brought her reproductive history into the public forum of the court by suing Reisinger-Kindle. Flanigan added that she is seeking a protective order that would stop the woman from speaking to the media about the case.

Craig concluded that the woman now faces a choice between going public or moving forward with the litigation, arguing that a voluntary abortion does not justify releasing health care information to the public. He also claimed that Reisinger-Kindle gains nothing from the woman’s name being disclosed, except perhaps the potential of pressuring her to drop the case. Revealing the name of his client has the potential to cause danger to her safety, he added.

Bohm said that he hopes to issue a ruling on the anonymity petition and the request for the protective order within the next few weeks.