We are told, and this seems to be one of the principle issues in the debate today, that this bill, with reference to the detention and security provisions, merely codifies existing law. Some of us say no, it doesn't codify existing law; it…

I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Mr. Wilson.

Efforts to attack that independence, as exhibited in H.R. 973, the bill introduced by our colleague from Florida, Ms. Adams, that would ban courts from 'deciding any issue on the authority of foreign law,' should trouble all of us.

Of course, in addition to instances where a judge may look to foreign law as non-binding but informative, courts sometimes must consider and be bound by foreign law in reaching a decision.

Our Constitution will remain our Constitution. We will not give authority to what is being done in foreign countries.

But there is nothing new and nothing alarming about justices educating themselves about the laws and practices of other nations.

We've been here before. In 2004, my Republican colleagues held a hearing on this issue to rail against the Supreme Court's decisions in Lawrence v. Texas and Atkins v. Virginia.

The right to choose is not limited to the right to end the pregnancy but includes the right to become pregnant and the right to bring a healthy child into the world.

The measure before us does absolutely nothing to provide women with the tools they need to get adequate prenatal care.

this bill will, however, deprive women of their fundamental constitutional rights to personal and bodily autonomy.

This bill will not liberate or empower women but will further shackle them.

Not since that decision has government ever arrogated to itself the power to decide whether a woman's reason for a pre-viability abortion is satisfactory.