Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Conservative Supreme Court Delivers Blow To LGBTQ Rights, Rejects Affirmative Action, Student Loan Plans; July 1: New Fiscal Year Means New Laws To Take Effect; Trump Pressurized Arizona's Then- Governor Doug Ducey TO Overturn 2020 Election Results; President Biden Unveils Student Debt Relief Plan After Supreme Court Loss. Two Groundbreaking Laws Give Pregnant and Nursing Workers More Protections; Southern California Hotel Workers Set To Go On Strike. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 01, 2023 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:01:02]

PAULA REID, CNN HOST: You are in the CNN NEWSROOM, I'm Paula Reid in Washington. Jim Acosta has the day off.

The US Supreme Court has wrapped up its term delivering three momentous rulings that carry deep social and financial impacts. All three of the cases were decided by a six to three vote along ideological lines.

The conservative super majority ruled that a Colorado web designer can turn away customers who want a same sex wedding announcement. The Colorado woman cites her Christian beliefs and the court rules, it is an issue of free speech, but many see it as a setback for gay rights.

The court also ruled that President Biden does not have the authority to implement a plan to forgive roughly $400 billion in student loan debts, some 40 million borrowers would have benefited to varying degrees.

And the court effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions. This means US colleges and universities can no longer use race as a factor when reviewing applications.

Now I want to bring in Supreme Court reporter, Ariane de Vogue. Ariane, thank you so much for joining us.

How significant is the affirmative action ruling for higher education?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Really significant.

Chief Justice John Roberts basically saying, in almost every circumstance, the schools can no longer take race into consideration. He basically said, if you're going to take race into consideration, the government -- it has to be a really high bar. And here the states, the schools did not meet that high bar.

He said, basically, the programs serve to thwart the goal of a colorblind society. So now the schools go back to the drawing board. And there's a little precedent for this, because there have been a handful of states that got rid of affirmative action. So they've been working behind the scenes to try to work on diversity through race, neutral means et cetera with mixed results. Some states have spent a lot of money to try to keep diversity up in a race-neutral way.

But what's interesting here is really not just about the schools. The schools are a pipeline to society. They really argued this in court, and it means that the schools send their students out, and now when they do, you may see less diversity in areas like medical schools, corporate America, all those areas could be less diverse because of this decision.

And Justice Jackson, she really called them out on this. And she said, look, we don't live in a colorblind society right now. There is still discrimination and those programs were necessary.

REID: Now, you've pointed out just how pointed the language in many of these opinions was at the end of the term. Let's talk a little bit about that. What was your reaction?

DE VOGUE: Well, this one was particularly interesting, because in this affirmative action case, you had Justice Clarence Thomas, he wrote a concurrence. And he actually read it from the bench. It may not sound like a big deal, but it rarely happens with this deep baritone, he read it, why he wanted these to go.

And she of course, was on the other side, and he took the opportunity to name her and really one section of the opinion really goes point for point based on what she had written, and here's what he said so you can get a little sense of it: "As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of Black Americans still determining our lives today."

Very strong words, a very personal opinion from Clarence Thomas there.

REID: Ariane de Vogue, you're analysis leading the CNN website a short time ago, definitely go check it out.

Thank you so much.

[18:05:02]

And now that the Supreme Court has ruled against affirmative action in college admissions, many colleges are unsure of their future diversity and might want to look at schools in California for a preview of what to expect.

The state banned affirmative action back in 1996, and it ultimately impacted Black and Latino student enrollment. CNN's Kyung Lah has more.

(Begin VT)

KYUNG LAH, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Harvard, Yale, Columbia -- Wesley Zhou shows us the rejection letters that ended his Ivy League dream.

WESLEY ZHOU, COLLEGE APPLICANT: I'm a straight A student, you know, 4.0 GPA, 4.68 weighted GPA.

LAH (on camera): Did you get into any Ivy League schools?

ZHOU: I did not. I did not.

LAH (voice over): That was Zhou when we met him two years ago.

This is where we find him today, soon to be a junior at UCLA.

ZHOU: I think eliminating race in consideration would definitely be a lot fairer.

LAH (on camera): And help you.

ZHOU: And -- probably, yes, in some sense would help me.

LAH (voice over): Zhou says he was accepted to every university of California school in the state that banned affirmative action in 1996. What's happened here in California could signal the future for US colleges without affirmative action.

UCLA professor, Eddie Cole says the impact was immediate.

EDDIE COLE, UCLA ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, HIGHER EDUCATION AND HISTORY: As soon as that went into effect, you saw at places like Berkeley and UCLA, the Black student enrollment among incoming freshmen dropped dramatically.

LAH (voice over): By more than half at those schools. Across the UC system, Black and Latino enrollment fell sharply the next year without affirmative action, but in the decades to follow, the UC system still took a progressive approach to improve those numbers to mid-90s levels, though Black student enrollment still lags at UC Berkeley, and UCLA only recently returned to mid-90s levels.

COLE: So if this decision was made in 1996, and we fast forward to 2023, nearly three decades later to say the numbers have finally improved, with the exception of Berkeley, imagine what it is going to look like on a national level.

You have to think about the legacy and impact across racial groups and why there are disparities decade after decade despite so many policies.

NIA MCCLINTON, UCLA GRADUATE: I could very easily walk into a classroom and feel like I'm someone who doesn't belong here, when that's not the truth, right?

LAH (voice over): Nia McClinton graduated from UCLA two years ago and now works in Black student outreach. Without such outreach and funding, McClinton sees this --

LAH (voice over): Do you feel like a lot of doors were closed for Black students in this country?

MCCLINTON: I'm worried that they will, so it is important to reach out and say like this is something that is attainable for you.

LAH (voice over): Wesley Zhou will soon be applying for medical school. He still believes affirmative action doesn't help him, but does see the impact beyond his own academic life.

ZHOU: I will say this right. Affirmative action does harm Asian- Americans, but without it, it will harm all the minorities in the United States. So, that's where I stand right now.

LAH (on camera); After three decades without affirmative action, the University of California system still believes that affirmative action is the way to go.

The UC system filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court. The justices though deciding that the rest of the country should follow California on this issue.

Kyung Lah, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

REID: It is hard to believe, but we're already halfway through the year and with July, marking the first day of the new fiscal year that means new state laws will officially go into effect.

Major legislative changes and some of them quite polarizing, are going to alter policies on abortion, firearms, and even child labor across the country.

CNN's Isabel Rosales joins us now to break down some of these new laws.

All right, in Florida alone, more than 200 new laws signed by Governor and presidential candidate, Ron DeSantis are now in effect. Isabel, tell us about some of these key changes.

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Paula, some of these laws have garnered national attention, and some have even been the focus of lawsuits. They are all important.

But I want to highlight three in particular, starting with something relating to immigration. Senate Bill 1718, a sweeping package signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, designed to curb illegal immigration. So here is what it does right here.

It forces companies with 25 or more employees to use e-verify, that's a federal software that will allow them to confirm the immigration status whether their new employees are eligible to work.

Then it also repeals a law that allowed undocumented people to become lawyers in the state of Florida, and it also bans undocumented people from driving in the state of Florida even if they have a license from a different state. Also hospitals, they are now required to ask about immigration status within those admission forms.

Now, critics say that this is an attack on an already marginalized community and also that Florida's economy will feel the pain.

I want to move on now to issues, a series of restrictions that impact the LGBTQ community starting with gender-affirming treatments, so things like puberty blockers and sex re-assignment surgeries, those are now banned for minors -- transgender minors in Florida.

[18:10:10]

Bathrooms: Transgender people are prohibited from using a bathroom that matches with their identity. Instead, they must use the bathroom in government buildings that matches what their sex is assigned at birth.

Also, pronouns restrictions on which pronouns can be used at school. No longer can teachers, students, or faculty offer up their pronoun of choice. Instead, it must match their sex on their birth certificate.

And then finally, education. This has been a big topic in the state of Florida. One of the new laws, now laws as of today, defunds diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. All state universities are now barred from using state or federal moneys on programs that advocate for DEI or promote or engage with political and social activism. Governor DeSantis calling those programs a distraction -- Paula.

REID: Isabel Rosales, thank you.

And coming up, we already knew about Trump's call to Georgia trying to overturn the 2020 election results in that state. Now, we're learning about a different phone call, this one to Arizona.

Plus, the Supreme Court handed down multiple controversial opinions this week. Will there be a political impact?

And at any moment, thousands of hotel workers in Los Angeles could go on strike. What the employees are asking for ahead, live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:40]

REID: Tonight, new reporting that Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election extended to the state of Arizona in a phone call to then-Governor Doug Ducey.

Trump reportedly pressured Ducey to overturn Arizona's results, which of course showed Joe Biden winning by a margin of less than 11,000 votes.

Trump also reportedly pushed his then-Vice President Mike Pence to call Ducey as well. Pence complied multiple times, but sources say he did not pressure the governor as Trump had asked him to do.

CNN's Jeremy Herb joins us now.

Jeremy, what more are you learning?

JEREMY HERB, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: Yes, Paula, you know, this is yet another case where we've learned details about just how President Trump pressured state level officials after the 2020 election to try to help him in his effort to overturn his loss to Joe Biden.

Now we knew about this call previously that Governor Ducey had with President Trump after the election, but what we are learning today from sources is new details about exactly how Governor Ducey was pressured by the president to try to specifically find fraud in his state and find enough fraud so that he could overturn the election.

Sources also telling CNN that Vice President Pence was enlisted in this effort by the president as well. And while Pence did speak to Governor Ducey multiple times about the election, a source tells CNN he did not pressure him as he was asked to do.

Now, if this sounds familiar, that's because it is similar to another call that President Trump had with Georgia secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger in 2021, when Trump asked the governor -- excuse me as the secretary of State to find enough votes for him to win.

There are some key differences. First off is exactly the ask that the president made. Our sources tell us that the President asked Governor Ducey to find fraud, not necessarily to find votes, like he said to Secretary Raffensperger, which is a key distinction.

The second difference is, our source tells us that there is no recording of this conversation that Governor Ducey had with, with President Trump, unlike the Raffensperger call where the recording was not only taken, but it was released almost immediately after that call in 2021.

Now in a statement, a spokesman for the governor downplayed the significance of this call, telling us: "Frankly, nothing here is new nor is it news to anyone following this issue in the last two years. Governor Ducey defended the results of Arizona's 2020 election, he certified the election, and he made it clear that the certification provided a trigger for credible complaints backed by evidence to be brought forward." None were ever brought forward.

Now, the spokesman also told CNN that Governor Ducey, he has not been contacted by the special counsel about this phone call -- Paula.

REID: How does this fit into the other ongoing investigations into former President Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election?

HERB: Yes, you know, and again, it is interesting here that this call is not something that the special counsel has asked the governor about because we do know that the special counsel is interested in these state level efforts. Secretary Raffensperger, he was interviewed this week by investigators for the special counsel. And we know they've interviewed others who are also involved in these state level efforts. So this is something we're going to be watching for in the days and weeks going forward ahead -- Paula.

REID: Jeremy Herb, thank you.

And allegations of a 2020 phone call to Arizona may not even be top of mind for the former president right now as his legal issues keep piling up.

This week, I reported along with some of my colleagues that campaign adviser, Susie Wiles, has spoken multiple times to federal investigators. She has been identified as the woman in the indictment who was allegedly shown a classified map while visiting the former president at his Bedminster golf club.

Now former federal prosecutor and defense attorney, Shan Wu joins us now.

All right, Shan, what's so interesting to me about the Susie Wiles, our reporting is that this really stuck out to us, right, in the indictment. This suggested that someone in the president's inner circle could have shared this information with investigators.

We know Wiles talked to prosecutors. We don't know though if she is the one who relayed this episode, where she was shown a map.

It has been suggested to us that maybe she wasn't necessarily the source of this information. How else would they know about this?

SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It is hard to know exactly how else they may have known about it. They may have been interviewing multiple people for it.

[18:20:10]

Someone like her is so critical because she could shed light on exactly what it was that Trump was rustling around in his hands and what he was saying about it, and if she actually got to see it, of course, that's going to be a very significant evidence against him in terms of mishandling that type of national security information.

REID: Yes, so far, she is still on the campaign trail. She was traveling with him this weekend. So it appears you know, she has not fallen out of favor in Trump world yet. Right? It's a revolving door though, we know that.

So we've also heard from multiple sources that the grand jury in Florida is still working, it's still investigating. Does it surprise you at all?

WU: A little bit. It's not unheard of for the grand jury to continue work. There may be some additional leads. If there is obstruction going on after the indictment, they could be looking at that. I think the key to watch for is whether they would seek to amend the indictment that supersede it or not, but it's not unheard of for them to continue, but a little bit unusual. Usually charging document is out, it is kind of the end of that grand jury.

REID: Yes, a lot of questions about whether there's more to come.

We reported this week that Rudy Giuliani, who is at the center of the efforts to overturn the 2020 election, that he sat down for a voluntary interview with investigators. Now, you're a defense attorney, a very good one. If Rudy Giuliani was your client, would you put him across from investigators without a proffer agreement, without any sort of assurances that he won't be prosecuted for what he could say?

WU: Yes, it is a little bit complex to figure out what steps happen before. Normally, I would first offer my proffer, meaning this is what my client would say. If that's appealing to them, then I would ask for some assurances.

Usually, the type of protection you're alluding to is called a Queen for a Day letter and that means it is reduced to writing and says that if he comes in nothing he says today are going to be used against him, but it's not that much protection, because they can still develop independent evidence to charge him. And of course, if he lies, they can charge him for that.

But that's probably the kind of protection he had when he goes in. Very, very different from immunity; very, very different from agreeing to be a cooperator. What they're hoping to do right now, I would be hoping to convince DOJ that, hey, he hasn't done anything wrong, but he is being cooperative.

In the white collar case, it isn't a whodunit, it's a question of was anything done at all?

REID: I mean, what's also interesting about Giuliani is that he sat for hours with the January 6 committee, so they already know most of what he'd say. Do you think there's any chance that he would cooperate against former President Trump?

WU: I think not for him. Everything changes, of course, you know, if you really get charged with something, but I think for him, the direction he's gone in is so much that he was giving legal advice. Interesting question, is he going to raise any attorney-client privileges? Will they be fighting?

REID: I have a feeling he will.

WU: About that -- yes.

REID: If there is one thing we've learned over the past year, right? If they are privileges, they are going to raise it.

WU: Exactly. They are going to raise it.

REID: It may not be successful, yes.

WU: But I think for him, in his position, it seems unlikely he's going to want to cooperate. Just from his tenor he has been taking so far, it doesn't look like it's going in that direction.

REID: And are you surprised this week, of course, Walt Nauta, Trump's co-defendant down in Florida, had his arraignment delayed, not so much because of travel issues, but because he still doesn't have local counsel. I mean, how hard is it to find a defense attorney in Florida, Shan?

WU: Yes.

REID: What's going on down there?

WU: Apparently, super hard.

REID: I don't get it.

WU: I don't get it either. Frankly, I think it's just part of a generalized delay tactic for him. I mean, it could be understandable if he can't find someone to help him pay his bills. I don't think he's going to have any problem having someone help him pay his bills.

So I really just can't imagine what the holdup is here. And at some point, most judges will slightly run out of patience with that. You get a couple of bites of the apple here, but when it's going on more than a month, they're going to be like, look, you know, just get counsel. Obviously, he does not qualify for appointed counsel. It shouldn't be this hard.

REID: Yes, and his current lawyer is paid through a Trump linked PAC, political action committee, and if he decides not to, or he decides to cooperate against the former president, right, he is going to have to find a new lawyer.

But what do you think realistically about the odds of this case going to trial before the next election? It is currently sort of being debated whether it'll happen in December? Do you think there is any chance that this goes to trial before the election?

WU: No. Even without this ticking clock, a case like this normally, average difficulty of white collar case would still take too long for that. This one is extraordinary complex. I just don't see any chance of it going to trial before the election.

REID: All right, asking for a friend. Thank you, Shan. I appreciate it.

And don't go anywhere. I'll be interviewing former President Trump's former lawyer, Tim Parlatore next in the next hour, about his first time hearing about Trump's call with the Arizona governor.

And still to come, after the Supreme Court blocked his student debt forgiveness program, President Biden is unveiling a new plan. Details ahead. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:29:20]

REID: It's been a week of big rulings from the US Supreme Court. In a stinging defeat for President Biden, the justices ruled that he does not have the authority to implement a student loan forgiveness plan. It would have erased roughly $400 billion in student loan debts. Some 40 billion borrowers would have benefited to varying degrees.

So President Biden has a new plan to provide additional relief to millions of borrowers. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez is at the White House.

Priscilla, what can you tell us about this so called Plan B.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Paula, this is a plan that White House officials had been working on behind the scenes in case the Supreme Court ruled against President Biden's student loan forgiveness program which we saw happen this week.

And so what this Plan B does is try to still provide debt relief to students, though, of course, it's still unclear the scope and breadth of this program and how it would compare to what the Supreme Court struck down.

[18:30:23]

But here's what we know about it, one, it includes a temporary 12- month on ramp repayment program. It also includes the Department of Education not referring borrowers to credit agencies during that period. Now, this may take months to come to fruition, but it is an important effort, according to the White House and one of the President has touted himself in remarks just yesterday.

Now, this has been a signature issue for the president dating back to his presidential campaign. And it remained so now including looking forward to the 2024 presidential election. But still, the President was faced with some tough questions yesterday, including whether he gave false hope to students, take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I didn't give any false hope. The question was whether or not I would do even more than was requested. What I did, I thought was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done. I didn't give borrowers false hope. But the Republicans snatched away the hope that it was - they were given.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALVAREZ: And that right there that Republicans snatched away is a phrase that we're likely to hear more of in the coming months. In fact, just earlier today, President Biden tweeted a similar sentiment essentially, that Republicans got in the way of student debt relief. So this is increasingly becoming a political issue, one that we'll see the White House likely lean more into as the 2024 election nears.

But again, the White House here are trying to set forth a plan B after facing a blow just this week and then we'll see more from the Department of Education in the coming weeks. Paula?

REID: Priscilla Alvarez, thank you. Also coming out of the Supreme Court, yet another divided ruling this time giving affirmative action in college admissions, the boot. The decision overturning a long standing precedent that has benefited underrepresented black and Hispanic students across the U.S.

Let's get some analysis now on the political impact of this week's ruling. Joining us CNN Senior Political Analyst and Senior Editor at The Atlantic, Ron Brownstein.

All right. Ron, first, I want to get your reaction to this ruling. Politically just how significant is this?

RONALD BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's enormously significant in what American society may look like over the next decade. The judge - the six Republican-appointed justices ended affirmative action, Paula. Basically precisely as kids of color, for the first time in American history, have become a majority of our high school graduates, that happened in 2022.

And yet, when you look at the data that the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce collects at the most elite institutions, 60 percent of the incoming seats are still filled by white students. And those institutions are the pipeline to leadership in the public and private sector.

So we are on a trajectory as a result of this ruling where in the years ahead and all likelihood there's going to be a widening divergence between who is basically running society and kind of the bulk of these younger generations. And it's just one of many issues on which this court majority has set itself, I think, in direct collision, not only with the dominant views among younger generations, but even their intrinsic identities as the most diverse, most secular and most likely to identify as LGBTQ generations in American history.

REID: Given a piece in The Atlantic criticizing the court's opinion on affirmative action, what do you think the impact of this decision will be not just on the future of college admissions, but on the future of race relations in this country?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. I mean, look, the question is we - I believe the core issue in American politics is the divide between those who are comfortable with the way the country is changing demographically, culturally and even economically, and those who fear or resent it. That is, I think, the fundamental glue in each coalition.

And what you see, I think, on issue after issue is this Republican majority on the Supreme Court that was nominated by Republican presidents confirmed mostly by Republican senators whose political coalition is rooted in the places least touched by all of those changes, is writing the rules, legal rules for society in a way that mostly reflects the priorities and grievances of older white, non- urban Christian America against these - as I've said, much more diverse, younger generation.

[18:35:00]

And so whether we're talking about abortion, whether we're talking about affirmative action, whether we're talking about climate change, whether we're talking about the balance between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights, this majority consistently is favoring the preferences of that older America. And there's just mounting tension between their vision of what America should be and the lived experience of these younger generations.

It's why FDR, when he was fighting with the Supreme Court in the 1930s, talked about the dead hand of the court. That was his phrase, because it reflected in many ways an earlier America that was saying no to his new deal agenda. And I think that's the situation we are going to be in increasingly for at least the next decade, in all likelihood with this majority.

REID: Well, generational contrast says represented by Supreme Court decisions, certainly nothing new in American history.

Now, the Supreme Court also ruled siding with a web designer who refuse to create a wedding website for same sex couples. But interestingly, a recent Pew poll taken last month says that 60 percent of Americans think that business owners should be able to refuse services, if it supports, for example, LGBTQ issues and they oppose them. Is the Supreme Court really is out of step with the American public as you think?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Well, I - first of all, I mean, on that question, the polling has been all over the place. There have been polls that have been 50-50 on that and there's polls in 60-40 the other way. I don't know if the court's decision even on affirmative action is necessarily out of step with the majority public opinion at this point.

What it does is collide with the intrinsic reality of a changing America. And what you see from this Republican coalition is a variety of attempts now to allow people to escape broader anti-discrimination laws, on the grounds that it impinges on their religious beliefs.

I mean, we just saw Gov. Ron DeSantis saw into law - signed a law in Florida that allows medical professionals to deny medical services to anyone that that they feel provides an ethical or moral collision or contrast with their own personal beliefs.

I think what you're going to see in the years ahead is the attempt to take this beachhead that the court has now allowed and to see how far they would allow it to be expanded. Can people make the case that they have religious objections to treating unwed mothers or interracial couples.

Those are the kinds of questions that I think they're going to come up as you see this, what I've called the coalition of restoration, working in all sorts of different ways through state and national policy to try to carve out exemptions from a broader move toward inclusion and tolerance on the grounds that it violates religious belief.

It is worth noting that white Christians are now down to 42 percent of the population overall. White evangelical Christians are down to 14 percent of the population overall. They're only about 30 percent of Americans under 30. But they remain almost three quarters of the Republican coalition.

And I think you see that driven in the state policies and as on many issues, you see that reflected in the jurisprudence of this Republican appointed court majority.

REID: Ron, I take your point about the composition of the court, but I note that this decision was based, of course, on her free speech, not her religious liberty. Ron, thank you so much for joining us.

BROWNSTEIN: And - right, it will be - there's no doubt, it will be tested to see how far in the religious liberty it can be applied.

REID: Yes. But this case was decision on free speech. Thank you so much.

Up next, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, it's a new law that's now in effect. A woman who started to push for this game changing legislation joins me next, live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:42:53]

REID: Working while pregnant can be tough, but a new federal law that went into effect this week could make it a little easier. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires businesses with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations. Those could include longer breaks, shorter working hours and time off for medical appointments and recovery for workers who need them because of pregnancy or childbirth.

Now estimates say the law more than a decade in the making could help nearly 3 million pregnant and postpartum workers across the U.S.

Dina Bakst Co-Founder and Co-President of the workers' rights organization, A Better Balance, is one of the women who push for the law.

Dina, thank you so much for joining us. What made you want to push for these additional protections?

DINA BAKST, CO-FOUNDER AND CO-PRESIDENT, A BETTER BALANCE: Thanks for having me, Paula. We were hearing from women in low wage and physically demanding jobs on our free legal helpline over and over again who faced the same impossible choice. Can I maintain a healthy pregnancy? Follow my doctor's orders. And too often women were forced off the job and face devastating economic consequences.

When modest accommodations could help them continue working and supporting their families. It was outrageous. We worked with women who were wound up homeless or unable to support their families, put food on the table, all because their employers refused to provide them temporary accommodations at work, and it was just outrageous and the law needed to be updated.

REID: Now, the law requires employers to work in good faith with pregnant and postpartum workers to provide accommodations. What do you say to some small businesses that believe this creates a hardship?

BAKST: Right. So let's just say that backing up for a second, the problem was a gap in our nation's federal or civil rights law, because the Pregnancy Discrimination Act really only required equal treatment. It didn't require an affirmative right to accommodations for pregnant workers. And another federal law, the Americans with Disabilities Act only required accommodations for workers with disabilities.

[18:45:06]

And so pregnant workers, postpartum workers were really falling through the cracks, and they needed their own affirmative right to accommodation. So we drafted a standalone piece of legislation modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act, borrowing from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which applies to workers with 15 or more employees, and says basically that employers need to accommodate absent undue hardship to the employer.

And that's a really workable standard. We worked with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and garnered bipartisan support for this legislation. Because employers recognize that this legislation was good for business. It's not only good for women, it was good for business and good for the economy.

These are temporary accommodations that help keep women healthy and attached to the workforce, promoting fairness, and equality and an opportunity. So this was really a win-win and we really had employers and business on our side pushing for this legislation.

REID: And recently, another law of the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act also went into effect. I think I can report as a source familiar that breastfeeding is like a part time job. But this gives breastfeeding workers more rights, so what impact will this actually have?

BAKST: Right. Well, like the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which also provides breastfeeding support, it closes a loophole in our nation's labor law, Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act that allows more salaried workers access, who are carved out of that law, access to time and space to pump breast milk at work.

So together, these laws are really a historic step forward for women's and families, for women's rights for racial justice, for economic justice, and really should be celebrated at a time where there's a lot more that we need to advance and protect women in the workplace. These are really, really important protections.

REID: So what's next? What's the next fight for you? BAKST: Unfortunately, our work is far from over. First and foremost, we need to make sure that workers understand their rights, that with respect to the pregnant worker fairness act and PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, we want to educate, we want to empower, we want to make sure that workers shouldn't fear asking for the accommodations they need.

Our organization, A Better Balance, has a lot of tools and resources available, folks should check them out and reach out, we have free legal helpline as well. And, of course, for - since our inception, we've been fighting for policies like paid sick time and paid family and medical leave, so no worker in this country has to choose between caring for a new baby or seriously a loved one and a paycheck and we will not stop fighting for those protections.

And I have to say that I am hopeful. I'm hopeful that policies and bipartisan solutions, like the pregnant worker fairness act show that bipartisan solutions are possible.

REID: Dina, thank you so much for joining us.

BAKST: Thank you so much for having me.

REID: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:52:36]

REID: At any moment, hotel employees in Southern California could go on strike as they push for higher wages. Many workers say they're priced out of cities where they work. The union says 53 percent of members in Los Angeles and Orange County have either moved in the past five years or will move soon because of soaring housing costs.

CNN National Correspondent, Camila Bernal, joins me now live from Los Angeles with more details. Camila, what's been happening there today?

CAMILA BERNAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Paula.

So a lot of people just on pins and needles waiting to hear if or when these workers will walk out and this will be very significant, because we're talking about 15,000 hotel employees in 65 different hotels around the area. And these are the people that greet you, the people behind the scenes that are cleaning and making the food and they have a number of demands, which of course begins with higher wages. And they're asking specifically for a $5 increase an hour.

They're also asking for safer essentially work and they're also asking for better health benefits. And what they're saying here is that they would like to see a housing fund and that's because of what you mentioned. They say a lot of the employees that work at these hotels cannot live nearby and have to commute maybe two hours to get to their places of work.

And so a lot of these union members are just frustrated and say that more needs to be done here. I want you to listen to one of those employees who says that she considers herself an essential worker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUCERO RAMIREZ, HOTEL WORKER: During the pandemic, we were called essential workers. Now there is no pandemic, employers think we are not essential anymore and they think they can run without us, but we all know that's not true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERNAL: And a person familiar with management plans for the hotels, has told us that they don't believe these hotels will close. They will continue to operate even if they don't have the staff necessary for certain things. We also know they offered an increase of $2.50. We're waiting to hear if those numbers have changed or if there's any progress in those negotiations.

But on the side of the hotels, there is this notion that the affordability here in Los Angeles and elsewhere belongs to the leaders here that is their duty is what a lot of these people involved in these negotiations are saying.

[18:55:06]

But again, it could make a difference here on this holiday weekend and on a weekend. We're also having the Anime Expo. It is just busy here in Los Angeles and it could be significant for a lot of the people who are staying here, Paula.

REID: Anime Expo sounds fun.

Camila Bernal, thank you.

And still ahead, another phone call by former President Trump pressuring a state official to overturn the 2020 election results, this time in Arizona. Details ahead.

But first, a quick programming note, CNN's July 4 special returns with an all-star lineup to celebrate the spectacular fireworks and musical performances. And don't miss, Fourth of July in America live, Thursday, July 4th at 7 pm Eastern only on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)