"Safe, legal & frequent"? Hillary tried finding a way to calm the culture wars, to unite women and all people in a divisive climate around an issue that shouldn't be bipartisan - Republican women and girls go for abortions in nearly the same numbers as Democratic ones do.

AFAIK, there are a few useful truths hidden in there. On a business product evaluation level, women don't "want an abortion" - they want to avoid a pregnancy. Or primarily, to avoid a birth and a mouth to feed and a psyche to raise, generally under conditions they don't find amenable much less beautiful. Usually not for tremendously selfish reasons - women in general are known for "taking it for the team", having those extra kids for thousands of years.

But we do know that excessive births are one of the major causes of poverty, as Ireland and Italy learned some time ago and the rest of the world is catching up on, while single-parent births are especially risky in this regard:

According to a 2010 study by the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of married couple families living in poverty was 6.2%. For single-parent households in that same year, the poverty rate was 27.3%; for single mother households, the poverty rate was 29.9%.

It's hard enough to limit those births when 2 major religions (Islam & Catholocism) and now a 3rd (Evangelicals) condemn birth control, even though or because the 3rd of these is a recent political development (the Evangelicals seemed to have discovered this objection only in 2011 simply as a response to Obama, while interestingly enough, the Dalai Lama has proven quite flexible on the subject despite traditional Buddhist condemnation).

But for whatever reason, 40% of US births are now to a single parent, and have been for years.

Hillary's position on abortion of "safe, legal, and rare" before the Evangelicals' revanchement was intended to provide some cover - that this wasn't simply a culture war of "anything goes" or promiscuity, as seemed the Evangelicals biggest objection, but of careful, responsible but realistic behavior, including to limit those tales of poverty and woe.

People talk about her inability to provide "vision", to come up with a clear, simple political message. And when she does? The far-left attacks:

Hillary is responsible for the “safe, legal, and rare” mantra that stigmatizes abortion, and she explicitly states that her goal is reducing abortions instead of ensuring that everyone has the safe and accessible reproductive care they deserve. 

Ah yes, I'm so concerned that abortion is "stigmatized", rather than the bigger reality that abortion clinics have closed at a horrible rate these last 10-15 years, and Congress is gunning for Planned Parenthood, and that much-safer medical abortion is still out of reach for most women, and that the major Republican candidates used a fake "late-term" abortion to attack it, and the new President-elect is now talking about women needing to go to a nearby state to get one and will nominate an anti-abortion Supreme Court justice that they stole to put a dagger in Roe v Wade....

And rather than use her nicely formulated "safe, legal and rare" line (cause I still haven't found a woman with an unwanted pregnancy who was thrilled to go get an abortion, though with the abortion pill they would have been at least less scared but still upset), HIllary's now abandoned the "and rare" part of the saying because those abortion purity experts have decided it's better to go into a campaign looking extreme rather than reasonable, to please the unpleasable wing of the party rather than to attract some of the female opposition who actually have much more to share than to object to in a reasonable Democratic Party.

In short, one more way for Democrats to lose. A 1000 cuts, one of H&R Clinton's 17 reasons why trying to get the Democratic Party to act in its own interests is a lost cause.