Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Sources: AZ House Expected To Push Through Repeal Of Civil War- Era Abortion Law Today; FTC Votes To Ban Most Noncompete Agreements; New Federal Rules To Mandate Hassle-Free Airline Refunds. Aired 7:30- 8a ET

Aired April 24, 2024 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:31:05]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, the Republican governor of Tennessee is expected to sign a controversial bill that allows teachers to carry guns in schools. The bill did require educators to have a permit and undergo a background check, psychological evaluation, and complete firearms safety training.

Former New York congressman George Santos has ended his independent bid to get back to the U.S. House. He says he does not want to split the vote with his fellow Republican Nick Lalota and cause a Democrat to get elected in New York's 1st congressional district. Santos faces nearly two dozen federal charges, including fraud, after being expelled from the House last December, which you will remember -- Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. How could we forget?

So, as the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up a major abortion case today about a ban in Idaho, we are also watching Arizona, where Arizona Statehouse lawmakers are expected to clear a major hurdle in the effort to repeal an eight -- that 1800s-era abortion ban we've talked so much about that's really thrown that state into chaos. The move today is something that the Statehouse tried and failed to pull off twice last week.

CNN's Natasha Chen is in Phoenix and she's joining us now. Natasha, what has changed this week? What's expected to happen?

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, a Republican source tells me that since last week's two failed attempts, there is now believed to be enough votes to first, bypass a procedural hurdle and then repeal this law. The Democrats need two Republicans to vote with them for this to happen because of such razor-thin majorities for Republicans actually in both chambers.

Now, if this happens, that doesn't mean it's immediately repealed because then it has to go over to the Senate. They have to have a couple of readings on this. And the Senate is expected to pass the repeal, though, at which point then it goes to the governor. So if this all goes to plan this wouldn't be officially repealed until early May.

Now, just to remind viewers what the law is, this 1864 -- the law that dates back to 1864 bans nearly all abortions except in the case of saving the pregnant person's life. There is no exception for rape or incest. And this wouldn't go into effect until June 8 at the earliest, even if -- assuming that there's no repeal here in the -- at the state legislature.

In the meantime, until June 8, the current law in effect is this 15- week abortion ban that the state passed in 2022. So you can imagine the confusion when you have these two laws side-by-side. That's why the State Supreme Court had to issue this ruling evoking reaction from people like Kari Lake running for Senate here. When the ruling came out, she said this was out of step with Arizonans.

But this is what she said to the Idaho Dispatch earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARI LAKE, (R) ARIZONA Senate CANDIDATE: The Arizona Supreme Court said this is the law of Arizona but unfortunately, the people running our state have said we're not going to enforce it. So it's really political theater. We don't have that law as much as many of us wish we did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: The rest of that interview, she emphasized the importance of focusing on a ballot initiative that abortion rights advocates are trying to put on the November ballot to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution. The Republicans have said, here in the House, that they are going to meet to discuss a counter-ballot initiative to oppose that one, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Natasha Chen in Phoenix for us. Thank you so much -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Joining me now to discuss all of this is CNN political commentator and Republican strategist, Alice Stewart. And former Democratic congressman from New York, Max Rose. Thank you both for being here.

I'm going to start with the Kari Lake reaction because I think it portends a bigger issue here. She is a Trump-backed candidate running for Senate. She's handled the near abortion ban in Arizona. She's flip-flopped on it two or three times.

[07:35:08]

Here is what she said in 2022 about the 160-year-old abortion ban known as ARS 13-3603. And I say that because she mentions it in her speech. And then listen to what she's -- how she's sort of gone back and forth over the last, I don't know, few months.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAKE: I'm incredibly thrilled that we are going to have a great law that's already on the books. I believe it's ARS 13-3603.

This total ban on abortion that the Arizona Supreme Court just ruled on is out of line with where the people of this state are.

The Arizona Supreme Court said this is the law of Arizona but unfortunately, the people running our state have said we're not going to enforce it. So it's really political theater.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: All right.

So, Alice, to you. Is this the best example of how Republicans are struggling with this issue of abortion as state-by-state starts to sort of crunch down and try to restrict abortion even more?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, PODCAST HOST, "HOT MICS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT": I would not put Kari Lake out there as an example of how to do a lot of things.

But I can say this. Look, the pro-life community and social conservative have fought really hard to overturn Roe v. Wade and those in the pro-life community will continue to do so.

The political reality is we understand the reality of this issue now in the post-Roe era. In the post-Roe world, every time abortion is a single issue on a ballot in states, the pro-abortion crowd has won.

So what I -- what I recommend, and I think Republicans need to do politically speaking moving forward, is embrace the current situation. And you can be pro-life. You can be anti-abortion. But you can also do everything you can to protect the sanctity of life and understand what kind of legislation -- what kind of laws need to be in place that can be embraced by everyone. And that means protecting the sanctity of life. That means exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.

And let's get away from talking about bans and let's talk about abortion limits. Where people can agree that is a reasonable limit on abortions and have that conversation.

And I think Nikki Haley also hit it on the head when she said let's make sure and stop demonizing this issue. Stop demonizing people on both sides and let's have rational conversations on what limits can be in place. And that's where Republicans need to go moving forward.

SIDNER: Good luck with the rational conversations. They've all gone all over the place.

Max, I'm curious because the Supreme Court is now looking at this issue. It's a federal law versus what's happened in Idaho, which has basically restricted abortion to the point where it's only to save the life of the mother.

MAX ROSE, (D) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Sure.

SIDNER: No other restrictions. What do you think about this being in the news? How does that help the Democrats do you think?

ROSE: Well, this is an awful situation politically for the Republican Party because they're caught between a political rock and a hard place. See, they have this extraordinarily large extremist base that is, after the overturning of Roe, seeking to have ultimate bans with no exceptions. They are not satisfied with just the Supreme Court ruling in and of itself.

And then you have an equally sizeable group of Independent, very swingable voters, particularly in these presidential swing states, where this is amongst the most motivating issues imaginable for them. Hence, why you see Kari Lake -- and this is candidate agnostic -- she may be a bad candidate -- but this is every Republican candidate. They are trying to appease that extremist base that they need while also then flip-flopping constantly to go after those Independents.

What we know certifiably right now is that if Donald Trump had lost the election in 2016 and the Democrats were in power, we would not be in this horrific situation. And it is imperative -- and he will do this -- the Biden campaign will consistently remind voters of that fact.

SIDNER: Well, let's go to that because President Joe Biden was in Tampa, Florida. He went to Florida because the Biden campaign believes that state might be up for grabs even though it went very heavily for Donald Trump back in 2016.

Here is what Joe Biden said to the crowd.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now, in America today, in 2024, women have fewer rights than their mothers and their grandmothers had because of Donald Trump. Look, I don't think we're going to let him get away with it, do you?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: OK, so that's what he says to the crowd.

Do you think this is a good bet that using this issue in a place like Florida can actually propel them to the White House again?

STEWART: Look, they're not going to turn Florida blue. There's no question about that. This is a very conservative state.

And look, to your point, yes. Donald Trump did appoint three conservative justices to the Supreme Court, which led to overturning Roe v. Wade. And it basically took the decision of abortion out of the hands of nine unelected justices and put it in the hands of the states. That's where it is now and that's where we need to be having these conversations.

[07:40:04] But look, I don't blame Joe Biden for going out and -- sending him out and Vice President Harris out talking about abortion because they're underwater on key issues that voters are concerned with. We're talking about inflation, the economy, the border, national security. They would much rather be talking about abortion than issues that are top of mind for voters.

And look, this will be a galvanizing issue. Politically speaking, I don't blame them. Go out there and rally the base. He clearly needs to rally his base and younger voters because he's losing their support.

So it's -- politically speaking, it's a smart move for him but you can see right through this. This is -- he doesn't want to talk about top issues that people have more confidence in Donald Trump on these issues, especially the economy, than they do Biden, and Biden doesn't want to talk about it.

ROSE: You know, it's always interesting when Republican leaders talk about state's rights issues, right? Reminiscent, of course, of when they made the same argument about civil rights.

Of course, when I deployed to Afghanistan more than a decade ago, I didn't wear the state of New York flag on my shoulder. It's the United States of America and we care about people's rights throughout the country.

And, of course, any woman -- any family, irrespective of the state that they live in, is one local election away from their rights being significantly restricted and one federal election away from a national ban. There is no reason to ever believe Donald Trump when he says he would not sign and support a national ban -- a federal ban the second that it hits his desk.

STEWART: There is a reason because you're never going to get the 60 votes to get that passed. So talking about a ban is just a Democratic talking point that is not going to happen. So it's an empty argument because it -- they won't get the votes to make that happen.

SIDNER: And there are the arguments right now. We do -- we should mention that we are going to hear these arguments to the Supreme Court on this latest case live in the next couple of hours, and I know you will be paying attention to that as we -- as we are.

Thank you so much, both of you, for being here.

STEWART: Thanks, Sara.

SIDNER: Kate.

BOLDUAN: (INAUDIBLE) with this, this morning. The federal government is taking on noncompetes -- these agreements millions of Americans sign onto for their jobs -- to get their jobs. Agreements that keep everyone from minimum wage workers to big business CEOs from changing their jobs within their industries. This is coming from the Federal Trade Commission and taking on what the FTC's chair said was robbing people of their economic liberty. CNN's Matt Egan is looking into this. He's joining us now. Matt, this is a nationwide ban. What does this really mean?

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, Kate, this new rule would obliterate noncompetes as we know them.

BOLDUAN: Wow.

EGAN: Look, noncompetes -- they've been around forever. They prevent people from jumping to rival companies for either a certain period of time or a certain geography.

BOLDUAN: Right.

EGAN: Sometimes they even prevent workers from starting their own companies.

BOLDUAN: Um-hum.

EGAN: This is not some obscure thing.

Look at this. Thirty million U.S. workers are bound by noncompete agreements. That's one in five workers.

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

EGAN: And it's everyone from the obvious, like bank executives and --

BOLDUAN: Right.

EGAN: -- tech engineers to factory managers, security guards -- sometimes even dog walkers. It's amazing.

Now, here is what this --

BOLDUAN: Oh, really?

EGAN: -- new crackdown would mean. If you were in the market right now for a job or you think you will be soon, you should know that when this new rule goes into effect -- if it does -- it would prevent for- profit companies from making employees sign noncompete agreements. They'd no longer be able to say sign this or lose the job.

Now, I know a lot of people are thinking well, I already have a noncompete.

BOLDUAN: Exactly.

EGAN: What does it mean for me? Well, it would make those existing agreements unenforceable, with the exception of senior executives -- those above $151,000 a year and who make policy. Now, here's the key, though. It has not taken effect yet. It takes effect 120 days after it gets published in the federal register.

The FTC says this would have a massive impact on the economy, boosting earnings, innovation by promoting new patents and new business creation. It would even drive down health care costs, the FTC argues, by promoting competition in health care.

But here's the problem. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposed. They are readying --

BOLDUAN: Businesses are not happy.

EGAN: Businesses are not happy. Businesses -- they argue that noncompetes are needed to protect trade secrets.

Now, this rule only got through the FTC narrowly, 3-2. The two Republican dissenters -- they say that it's unlawful and it would not survive legal challenges.

As I mentioned, the Chamber -- they're already preparing a lawsuit over what they call an administrative power grab.

So listen, Kate, I think at the end of the day, proponents -- they say this would be a gamechanger for employees, giving them more bargaining power with their bosses. The question, though, is whether or not this gets delayed or even killed in the courtroom.

BOLDUAN: It's, like, it's funny because you say oh, noncompete contract law -- snoozer. But when you see your job -- but when you see how many people it impacts --

EGAN: It's huge. It's a really big deal.

BOLDUAN: -- this is -- this is very interesting. All right, let's see where it goes.

EGAN: Thank you, Kate.

BOLDUAN: It's good to see you, Matt. Thanks for bringing it to us -- John.

BERMAN: Yeah, exactly zero television correspondents are saying snoozer. Everyone is paying very close attention to this.

All right. New this morning, the next time you get jerked around by an airline they may be forced to give you an apology in cash.

[07:45:04]

And this morning, a new report warning that millions of Americans are breathing in unhealthy air pollution. Which areas are in the danger zone?

(COMMERCIAL)

BERMAN: So, brand new this morning, new rules that could put money in your pocket fast if you get jerked around by an airline. You get a cash refund in delays of three hours or more, and also much more transparency on all the fees you are charged for almost everything when you fly.

[07:50:02] With us now is Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. Mr. Secretary, thanks so much for being with us.

So my flight gets delayed three hours. What happens and why?

PETE BUTTIGIEG, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Well, bottom line is you get your money back and you get your money back without having to ask.

Look, a lot of times what's happened is there's this scenario where you get delayed a long time -- so many hours that maybe you wind up booking a different ticket -- same day, more expensive, on a different airline because otherwise, there would be no point in traveling because you're going to miss the meeting, or the wedding, or whatever you were heading out to do.

But then you go back to your original airline, and they say well, look, we didn't cancel the flight so you're not getting your money back. Now you're out the original airfare and the extra money it cost to get this new ticket.

That's just one example of the kind of scenarios that we hear from passengers time and time again. We're putting a stop to it now. From now on, when your flight is canceled for any reason, you are entitled to an automatic cash refund, and it has to be prompt.

If you get delayed significantly -- that means three hours domestically, six hours internationally -- of if there's another significant change to your itinerary, like maybe you were going to go into one airport and they actually changed the airport on you, or something like that -- you're going to get your money back. And importantly, you're going to get it without having to ask.

Another situation we see a lot is you get a cancelation or a disruption and the airline says we're so sorry, here's 2,000 miles. And maybe that sounds good but that's worth $20.00 when actually you are owed hundreds.

So this is all about making it simpler for passengers. And also with this rule, new provisions about the information that you should get upfront so that you know before you buy a ticket what some of the fees are that are connected to that. We're seeing a lot of these hidden fees, junk fees and it's not a free market if you don't know what you're getting or how much you are paying before you make that commitment to purchase a ticket.

BERMAN: And there are now fees for so many different things on an airline.

What about the fees you are charged and refunds for things on the plane themselves? The Wi-Fi doesn't work. Do you get that similar refund there? If your in-flight entertainment doesn't work. Things like that.

BUTTIGIEG: That's right. Another thing we haven't had up until now is a rule making it abundantly clear that when you pay for one of these ancillary services and you don't get it, then you get your money back for that, too. Wi-Fi is a good example. We've all had the experience of the Wi-Fi not working. If you paid for that and it doesn't work, you get your money back.

Same thing with baggage. You pay extra to check a bag and the bag doesn't get there, then you ought to get your money back for that.

I know that there are a lot of different things we've been adding in since we set out on this mission to expand passengers' rights. So I want to make sure passengers know you can go to flightrights.gov. It's a website with a lot of clear information about what you can expect, what we enforce, and a way to let us know if you have a problem with an airline because we will follow up.

So far, just since this administration got here and just since I got this job, we've seen about $3 billion go back into passengers' pockets through refunds and enforcement actions that we've driven, and we're going to have more where that came from.

This is about also making sure it's less likely to happen to you in the first place. When an airline knows that anybody on a flight that's going to get canceled is going to get their money back, it gives them more of a reason to make the investments and the realistic schedules to prevent that from happening to you in the first place.

BERMAN: Mr. Secretary, very quickly, I know you grew up with parents who were university professors. Obviously, there are protests on college campuses across the country -- pro-Palestinian protests.

Where is the line between free speech -- legitimate protests against Israeli policy and perhaps being threatening to some students at the colleges?

BUTTIGIEG: Well, look, no one should ever feel threatened, harassed, intimidated as they are going about their studies.

Now, universities, by design, are a place for free speech. A place for the vigorous contests of ideas, especially when there is the kind of anguish that so many are experiencing over the suffering that is taking place in Gaza and the suffering of the hostages -- Israeli hostages as well. That should never, ever lead to an environment of harassment, of intimidation, or of violence.

BERMAN: Sec. Pete Buttigieg, thanks so much for being with us this morning. I appreciate it -- Sara.

BUTTIGIEG: Thank you.

SIDNER: All right. This morning, an alarming new report about America's air quality. Nearly 40 percent of people across the United States are living in places that have unhealthy levels of polluted air. That is according to new data from the American Lung Association. The report also shows that number is actually on the rise.

Let's get right to CNN's Jacqueline Howard for the details on this. Is there any sense of exactly what is causing this increase? And it's on the rise. It's already bad for 40 percent of the people.

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: That's right, Sara. And we know what wildfires, drought, extreme heat -- those are all factors driving this increase. And those are also factors associated with climate change.

[07:55:00]

Now, I will say since the Clean Air Act in 1970, as a nation, we've seen about a 78 percent drop in emissions from air pollutants. But even with that improvement there are still more than 100 million people in this country breathing unhealthy air. And that's really what this new report sheds light on, Sara.

So, according to this report, about 39 percent of people in the U.S. live in places with unhealthy levels of air pollution, and that's an increase from last year when it was estimated about a quarter of us live in places with unhealthy levels of air pollution.

And ozone -- it's a big component of smog -- that's also a major contributor to this air pollution. The top five cities with the most ozone pollution are all concentrated in the West. The majority are in California. There is one in Arizona.

Then when you look at the top five cities with the cleanest air in the U.S., most of them are along the East Coast. There's one in Maine. There's one in North Carolina.

So we do see these regional differences when we think about the areas with the most air pollution. And we also know, Sara, there are many vulnerable groups out there -- older adults, infants, pregnant women. So this is a public health concern that really needs a lot of attention.

SIDNER: It's interesting to see the disparities between the West and the East Coast. The West getting all of those fires making a big --

HOWARD: Yes.

SIDNER: -- big, big difference.

Jacqueline Howard, thank you so much -- appreciate it -- Kate.

HOWARD: Exactly.

BOLDUAN: So this morning, Donald Trump is standing by to find out if the judge overseeing his hush money trial is going to hold him in contempt and punish him for violating the gag order that has been in place. And if he has crossed the line -- if that's what the judge decides -- what is the penalty going to be?

And also, the plot thickens, maybe. There is perhaps another example of Donald Trump violating that gag order in a new interview with CNN affiliate WPBI. It was conducted before yesterday's gag order hearing but aired after it all wrapped up.

Donald Trump, once again, going after Michael Cohen -- listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he's got no credibility whatsoever. He was a lawyer, and you rely on your lawyers. But Michael Cohen was a convicted liar. He was a lawyer for many people, not just me, and he got in trouble because of things outside of what he did for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: And joining me right now is former attorney for President Trump, Tim Parlatore. Tim, thank you for getting up early after a late night to help me out.

Trump -- as I said, Trump did this interview with the CNN affiliate before the contempt hearing. It didn't air until last night.

How big of a problem is this one going to be for Trump and also, his legal team now?

TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: I mean, I think that this interview, to me, does seem to be a direct violation of the order as it is written. And so, I think it's problematic for him, especially if this airs while the judge is currently sitting and trying to decide the issue. So the fact that it happened before the hearing I think helps, at least, a little bit. I mean, if he had done that interview live last night after the hearing, then I think the judge would have no choice.

BOLDUAN: Yeah. You know, I am not an attorney and don't pretend to be, but the reaction from the judge to Trump's attorney during this gag order hearing seems to be something that you do want to avoid when you are in court.

I mean, Todd Blanche telling the judge, "President Trump is being very careful to comply with your order," in terms of the gag order. But you see it on your screen there. And the judge responding at one point, "You are losing all credibility with the court."

What do you think could happen now? I mean, how does -- it -- add it all together. How does Todd Blanche now explain this PBI interview to the judge if and when asked, and what do you think happens now?

PARLATORE: You know, the judge also made a comment a little bit later where he said I would like to hear that from your client. And I think what the judge is trying to figure out and trying to draw Blanche into is is this how the lawyer explained it to Trump? And obviously, that's problematic to get into privileged conversations.

But Todd is kind of telling the line of saying this is -- what he's done is not a violation of the order, and the judge is trying to figure out well, did his lawyer tell him that? Because if he's complying with his lawyer's interpretation, then maybe the wrong person is my target. And so, is Todd Blanche trying to take fire away from his client? I don't know. But it is definitely a situation that I wouldn't want to be in. I mean, I look at this and I think the only real legitimate defense, as I see it, to this is to -- is something that won't work with this judge is to attack the breadth of the order itself. And I think that there is an argument to be made there but it's not going to work until you get up on an appeal.

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

Real quick before I let you go.