Given Hillary's stated willingness to compromise on abortion rights...

Hillary stated the following regarding her willingness to compromise on abortion rights. These are her words:

HILLARY CLINTON: My husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions and he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision, that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. Women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem. Women whose life is threatened if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.
Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.

Now unless, I misread the above, it sounds like Hillary would be open to potentially accepting legislation that would outlaw an outright ban on late-term abortions as long as it did not threaten a woman's life. Please correct me if you think I am wrong on that interpretation.

Now... the difficult question.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/texas-republican-wants-women-carry-deceased-fetuses-full-term

The above link is to a Texas politician, Rep. Matt Schaefer who put forward an amendment that would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks, even if a fetus “has a severe and irreversible abnormality,” effectively forcing families with wanted, but unsustainable pregnancies to carry to term at the behest of the state and against the advice of their doctors or their own wishes.

So my question is: Is this the kind of bill that Hillary might be willing to compromise on if it had a stipulation that an abortion could be performed in the case of potential harm to the mother?

If Hillary has been misunderstood on her recent comment about being "open" to compromise on abortion, she could clear it up pretty easily by saying that she would accept no compromises on abortion rights. But she has done the opposite. She has sent a signal, to the right, that she is to the right of Sanders on the issue of abortion rights, that she is ready to "talk about it". How far would she go? Do we have a right to know? I certainly think so.