I do think that the absolute worst way that anybody who engages political or philosophical debate is to respond to direct questions with obscurities, mealy-mouthed rhetoric, or to use terms like, "That never happens." or "That almost never happens."
First of all, you have to understand that there are always people who are willing to say the quiet part loud. Second of all, that's usually not the point. Bad things often do happen rarely. If your response is to just say that something almost never happens or never happens rather than actually condone or condemn the thing, it's a strong indication that you're okay with it happening while knowing that it's wrong at some level. It's a clear attempt to have your cake and eat it too.
There are scholarly papers that openly support after birth abortions. Just look up The Journal of Medical ethics. You may agree that abortions should be legal after birth; but, if you are, you should say it. If you resort to, "It almost never happens." or "It never happens." there's a plausible reason for people to assume that you're okay with destroying a child that's already apart from the mother's body - or that you're at least sympathetic to the idea. That opens a can of worms for you. If you won't flatly condemn the idea of terminating a child who has been born, how can you condemn Casey Anthony? If you do believe in after birth abortions, that puts a chink in the armor of the "My body my choice." statements. If you're new to party and weren't aware that there are people who passionately support after birth abortions, there's nothing wrong with saying that you haven't given it proper thought and that you're not aware of the arguments, that's at least showing humility. But, that's different from playing hide the ball with your personal views.
I hear these responses all the time, even from people in government (especially people in government) about surgeries and chemical sterilization of kids with gender dysphoria. Even Rachel Levine wouldn't voice her personal view about bottom surgery on prepubescent children. Even when a story breaks of a real life parent with a real life kid who is celebrating that her kid has been chemically sterilized at the age of fifteen, activists are either dismissive or they reiterate that it's rare.
That's not good enough.
First of all, a reason why it's rare is because there are legal restrictions in most states when it comes to drugging children. It's still illegal in every state to cut off the testicles of a prepubescent boy without a clear physical, medical reason. Nobody is asking you about how often it happens. People are asking you if you think that it's right that it ever happens. When Rand Paul was asking Levine about bottom surgeries on children, he wasn't asking how often it happens, he was asking a nominee for a high government office to say what she thinks should happen and should be permissible and should be recommended. We all have legitimate reasons to be concerned that Levine wouldn't produce an answer. Even if Levine said in no uncertain terms that we should be able to castrate a six year-old who identifies as a girl, I would have more respect for Levine because she would show the courage of her convictions and a conversation can be had in regard to ethics.
On any issue, the response should be yes, no, or not sure. The response can even be that it's complicated. Some issues are incredibly complicated and nuanced and the devil is in the details. Acknowledging that an issue is complex isn't the same as playing hide the ball or being dismissive of inquiry.
Finally, what has become a particularly popular tactic is to attack certain lines of questioning as somehow being unfair or abusive. Well, if you're in government, all bets are off. If you want to write the laws of the land, you don't get to cry when people try to understand what's going on between your ears. The same goes for activists. You don't get to shout your beliefs from the rooftops and cry foul whenever anyone asks you to accurately define what you believe and why you believe it. Really though, this whole rant isn't for my own good. This is to tell anybody and everybody who engages in this behaviour that this is how every reasonable person sees you. There's no indication of strength or honesty in obfuscation. Really, it makes it clear that you want something that you yourself doubt to be morally right and that you lack the courage to examine your beliefs.