Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) broke from her radical colleagues during the Ohio debate Tuesday night by stating abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” and indicating she would, if elected president, work to restrict most abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy.

CNN debate host Erin Burnett asked the candidates how, as president, they would block states whose elected representatives vote to ban or restrict abortion.

“This is often one of the most difficult decisions that a woman will ever have to make, and it’s unfortunate to see how in this country it has for so long been used as a divisive political weapon,” Gabbard responded, and continued:

I agree with Hillary Clinton on one thing, disagree with her on many others, but when she said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, I think she’s correct. We see how the consequences of laws that you’re referring to can often lead to a dangerous place, as we’ve seen them as they’re passed in other countries, where a woman who has a miscarriage past that six weeks could be imprisoned because abortion would be illegal at that point. I do, however, think that there should be some restrictions in place. I support codifying Roe v. Wade while making sure that, during the third trimester, abortion is not an option unless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk.

On Saturday, the New York Times published a piece attacking Gabbard in advance of the debate as a right-wing extremist with “suspicious activity” around her campaign.

Breitbart News reported:

The Times article, “What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?,” claims that Gabbard is beloved by white nationalists, antisemites, and Russians attempting to interfere in the election, citing “suspicious activity” around her campaign.

While Gabbard has broken from her fellow Democrat candidates in stating restrictions should be placed on abortion, she is not up to date on Hillary Clinton’s most current views on the issue if she is using the failed candidate as a reference point.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton said over 25 years ago that abortion is a “fundamental constitutional right” and should be “safe, legal, and rare.”

In 2008, Clinton repeated she wanted abortion, “safe, legal and rare, and by rare, I mean rare,” as the pro-life LifeNews reported.

Eight years later, however, when Clinton was running for president — and received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood — she clearly said unborn babies have no constitutional right to life, even up until their due date.

In April, Clinton responded to The View co-host Paula Faris when asked about her comments that an unborn child has no constitutional rights:

Under our law that is the case, Paula. I support Roe versus Wade because I think it is an important — an important statement about the importance of a woman making this most difficult decision with consultation by whom she chooses: her doctor, her faith, her family. And under the law and under certainly that decision, that is the way we structure it.

After losing the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump, Clinton wrote in her book What Happened that pro-life Democrats must vote against their principles and in favor of legislation that promotes abortion rights.

“But when personal views on abortion become public actions — votes on legislation or judges or funding that erode women’s rights — that’s a different matter,” Clinton wrote about whether views on abortion should be a litmus test for Democrat Party candidates. “We have to remain a big tent, but a big tent is only as strong as the poles that hold it up.”

In January, Clinton joined New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) to push for a state measure — which he ultimately signed into law — that would permit abortions “at any time” a patient’s health needs to be protected.

Pro-life activists and medical providers noted that allowing abortion “at any time” a patient’s “health” needs to be protected is purposefully vague.