Rep. Gabbard’s slight deviation from the position of the remainder of the pro-abortion Democrats running for President

By Dave Andrusko

When competing with a field of rabidly pro-abortion Democrats running for their party’s presidential nomination to face pro-life Donald Trump, even the slightest shred of commonsense makes you stand out.

So, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard did make some waves in an interview with Dave Rubin. By way of background, Gabbard has earned a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider, and supports federal funding of abortion. She has also voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

So where did Rep. Gabbard draw the line?

Abortion, Gabbard told Rubin, is a “libertarian” way [Rubin is a well-known Libertarian] and government shouldn’t be restricting women’s choices.

Gabbard went on to say, “I think that there should be some restrictions though,” which prompted Rubin to ask if the Congresswoman had a “cutoff point.”

She answered, “I think the third trimester. Unless a woman’s life or severe health consequences is at risk, then there shouldn’t be an abortion in the third trimester.”

Not exactly a rousing statement of pro-life principle. However, if the position of the other Democratic president candidates is 180 degrees different than President Trump’s position, Gabbard’s willingness to accept any limitation makes her practically shine by comparison.

Two quick points. First, we’ll see how long this lasts. The Democratic National Committee Gabbard did not certify Gabbard to participate in the September 12 debate and the DNC has not as yet accepted the poll numbers Gabbard provided that would make her eligible for the 4th debate in mid-October.

But because Gabbard’s position is different than the rest of the field, the ten certified candidates for Thursday’s debate might get asked the question so they can preen for pro-abortion credentials.

Second, I am not begrudging Gabbard’s willingness to take a step back from absolute abortion absolutism. But she is not going to be the nominee. Moreover, it is impossible that the party nominee would adopt her position or agree with Gabbard’s reported unwillingness to advocate the end of the Hyde Amendment which bans almost all federal funding of abortion.