Liberals have never been able to decide why they are against legislation that protects newborns who survive attempted abortion. Half the time they say it’s because the legislation is unnecessary, since existing law already requires doctors to give these newborns the same medical attention as other newborns in the same medical condition. Half the time they say it’s because the law interferes with “reproductive rights” or parental authority to make medical decisions. At no point do they confront the contradiction between these arguments.

Senate Republicans forced a vote on such legislation today. The opponents are still trying to have it both ways. Here’s the headline on the New York Times’ story: “Senate Democrats Block G.O.P. Effort to Criminalize Some Abortion Providers.” Which ones? The ones that are already violating the law? Paragraph five: “Federal law already requires that a baby who survives an attempted abortion receive emergency medical care . . .” The Times does not, however, cite the law it has in mind. If it’s the 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act — which is what the opponents of the law have invoked in past rounds of debate — there are two problems: That law does not explicitly require medical care at all, and includes no penalties.

The article gives the last word about the bill to Senator Patty Murray (D., Wash.): “It would create a new government mandate that would override the best judgment of grieving families that find out their fetus has a fatal condition.” Wait, so the families get to decide whether the newborn receives emergency medical care? The Times just told us that federal law says the newborn has to receive that care. And the proposed law gives families the same range of choice over treatment that families have with respect to the treatment of other newborns.

The confusion on born-alive legislation always takes the same form and is always easy to clear up. It’s enough to suggest that the confusion is motivated—and the motive is protecting the Democrats from exposure of their extremism on this issue.