What happened to "rare?"

Doug Kmiec argues that "the Democratic platform language on abortion takes several notable steps toward specific, constructive ways to honor human life."  I appreciate the new platform's inclusion of prenatal care, income support, and adoption programs as national priorities.  But, like Linda Hirshman, I was more struck by the absence of the "safe, legal, and rare" mantra.  Unlike Hirshman, though, I had always taken some comfort in the "rare."  As Michael points out, Hirshman counts this new direction as progress, since the earlier version of the platform "asked that women not have abortions unless they absolutely must." 

Did the platform's drafters share Hirshman's sentiment, or did they view the "safe, legal, and rare" language as superfluous in light of the call for prenatal care, income support, and adoption services?  If the latter is the case, I would gently remind them that, in the painful national conversation about abortion, language is rarely superfluous.