Hillary Clinton used to describe her position on abortion with the terms “safe, legal and rare.” It’s a position that falls in line with a majority of Americans, and Clinton knows it.

Except Clinton is not one of them.

The Democratic presidential candidate takes a radical stance on abortion that matches only the most zealous abortion activists. She supports full-fledged taxpayer funding of abortion. She has spoken in support of partial-birth abortion. During an interview on The View recently Clinton also said an unborn child just hours before delivery should have no Constitutional rights.

In a new editorial, the Washington Times pointed out how Clinton’s rhetoric on abortion has changed. In 2008, Clinton kept her “safe, legal, rare” position in her failed run for the Democratic presidential nomination. At one point on the ’08 campaign trail, Clinton even said “… and by rare, I mean rare.”

SIGN THE PLEDGE! We Oppose Hillary Clinton!

Her change in tune has become increasingly evident, however. The conservative news outlet noted that during a recent TV interview, Clinton said, “You know, I’ve been on record for many years about where I stand on abortion, how it should be safe and legal and I have the same position that I’ve had for a very long time.” Catch that? She dropped the “rare.” And it wasn’t just a slip-up. She also dropped the “rare” during her recent speech to the abortion business Planned Parenthood, the Times pointed out.

One could argue that Clinton isn’t too interested in ensuring women have “safe” abortions either. As the Washington Times editors wrote:

She offered angst-ridden concerns about an imminent Supreme Court ruling on “the Texas law that imposes burdensome and medically unnecessary requirements on abortion providers.” This law requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals in the event a patient suffers serious complications, as sometimes happens, and the law requires abortion clinics to upgrade their facilities to standards of care required of hospitals. Kermit Gosnell, the infamous doctor of a Philadelphia abortion mill that was filthy enough to frighten away rats and roaches, would have owed Hillary a fist-bump for standing up for substandard abortion clinics.

It is a sly rhetoric tactic on Clinton’s part. Most Americans probably would be disgusted if they knew Clinton’s true position on abortion. Polls show that a strong majority oppose taxpayer funding of abortion (Clinton promised Planned Parenthood that she would force taxpayers to fund abortions if elected). Most Americans want abortion to be illegal or heavily restricted to the “rare” cases, but that’s not Clinton’s position either. She has openly opposed restrictions on late-term abortions when babies are viable outside the womb and when scientific evidence shows they feel pain.

But by subtly dropping “safe” and “rare” from her abortion position, she is able to deceive low information voters into thinking that her position on abortion is moderate. A pro-Clinton Super PAC even is furthering this deception by running an ad that appeals to pro-life and Christian voters.

The Washington Times editors concluded: “Hillary, always eager to play follow the leader with the president, is determined to keep abortion legal. Safe and rare, not so much.”

Clinton seems to hope that these deceptive tactics will woo more moderate voters to her struggling campaign. But if voters take even a little time to examine Clinton’s position on abortion, they quickly will see that she is no moderate. If elected, Clinton could quite possibly overtake President Barack Obama’s record and become the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history.