Trump said it’s up to the states to decide abortion. Here’s everything else he didn’t say.

Former President Donald Trump said he wants abortion to be a state issue in the post-Roe era.

What he hasn’t said is how he’ll handle almost any of the chaos and complexity of leaving abortion rights to the states.

So we posed a list of questions to the Trump campaign.

Trump in a video posted Monday to Truth Social did not address what executive actions he would take to curb abortion access as president — including whether he would invoke the 1873 long-dormant Comstock Act, which prohibits mail delivery of “lewd or lascivious material” like abortion pills, to ban or restrict the procedure. He underscored his support for in vitro fertilization but didn’t say whether he would support federal policy to protect it. And he didn’t weigh in on what he would do if federal abortion restrictions, at 15 weeks of pregnancy or otherwise, crossed his desk.

“No matter how you square it, there is no way to take Congress or a federal role out of the equation,” said Jesse Southerland, federal policy director at Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group. “Even Biden believes that abortion is a federal issue. Why doesn’t the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party believe that?”

The campaign did not respond to the list of questions.

Would you sign a bill prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy?

Trump said that states will set their abortion policies in the post-Roe era by popular vote, legislation or both. But he didn’t rule out signing a federal ban should it reach his desk.

It is unlikely that a federal abortion ban — even at 15 weeks — would have the votes to pass the Senate, but abortion opponents, who have noted that Trump on Monday did not explicitly state he wouldn’t sign a ban, could force the issue.

“I don’t think this stops groups from pushing that,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of anti-abortion group Students for Life Action. “Who’s to say? Maybe we will see a bill pass and that gets to his desk as president to sign.”

Would you direct the FDA to revoke authorization of the abortion pill mifepristone or roll back other policies that have expanded access to the drug?

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used together to terminate a pregnancy. No matter the ruling — and the justices seemed skeptical of arguments from the anti-abortion camp — the pill’s future is in the hands of the FDA. While the agency is supposed to be independent, Trump could appoint a commissioner who revokes the two-decade old approval of mifepristone, which is used in roughly two-thirds of all abortions.

The FDA could also revoke regulations that allow the drug to be dispensed without an in-person visit and permit its use through 10 weeks of pregnancy, rather than seven.

Would you use the Comstock Act to ban or restrict abortion?

Some anti-abortion advocates would like to see Trump revive the Comstock Act to curb abortion access. The idea is alluded to in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a conservative roadmap for a Republican administration, and other anti-abortion groups have been pushing the policy as well.

Jonathan Mitchell, the architect of Texas’ bounty hunter-style abortion ban, which offers $10,000 to private citizens who successfully sue anyone who aids or abets an abortion, has argued that Comstock could be used to ban abortion nationwide by prohibiting the mailing of drugs or supplies used in the procedure. Others, like former Trump official Roger Severino, believe the law would only apply to materials used only in abortions, such as mifepristone, and would not amount to a total ban.

How do you propose to reconcile issues of state sovereignty on abortion? 

Democratic-controlled states have spent two years since the fall of Roe shoring up and expanding abortion access in an effort to meet the needs of not only their own residents but those who live in nearby states where the procedure is banned.

Many of them have passed so-called shield laws protecting doctors who provide — and patients who receive — abortions from out-of-state prosecution. But none of those laws have been tested, despite fears that there would be extradition wars between states.

GOP-controlled legislatures have sought to stop their residents from obtaining out of state abortions. Idaho became the first state last year to pass an “abortion trafficking” law, which makes it a felony to help a minor who isn’t their own child obtain an abortion out of state. That law remains blocked in court as litigation proceeds, though other states, like Tennessee, have considered passing similar legislation.

What Biden-era policies on abortion would you roll back as president and would you reinstate your first-term policies?

Since the Dobbs decision, President Joe Biden has used executive authority to pay for members of the military to cross state lines to receive abortions, allowed abortions in some cases at VA clinics and permitted retail pharmacies to dispense abortion pills. The president also reversed Trump-era restrictions on funding for Planned Parenthood and overseas groups that provide abortion referrals, and ended restrictions on fetal tissue research.

Trump could reverse all those actions.

“Donald Trump did a great job in his first term making sure that tax dollars are not being used to kill unborn children either in this country or in other countries, providing conscience protections for doctors. There’s all sorts of things that can be effective,” Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, told POLITICO.

Would you sign legislation protecting access to IVF?

Trump on Monday stressed his unqualified support for in vitro fertilization, echoing many other Republicans who have addressed the topic in the month since an Alabama Supreme Court decision sparked a national debate over the procedure. But he didn’t address whether he would support federal protections for IVF.

Four House Republicans running for reelection in competitive seats have signed onto a bill from Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) that would create broad federal protections for IVF — the companion to a measure Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) is pushing in the Senate.

Rep. Mike Carey (R-Ohio) is working a bill to expand IVF access for people who can’t afford it, while Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Michelle Steel (R-Calif.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) and Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) have put forward non-binding resolutions declaring broad support for IVF.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) have introduced resolutions stressing slightly more qualified support for IVF by calling for “state legislative and regulatory actions to establish health, safety, and ethical standards for medical facilities offering assisted reproductive technologies.”

Anti-abortion groups oppose many of these measures and would like to see more regulations for fertility clinics, limits on the number of embryos that can be created or transferred to the uterus at one time, and a ban on pre-implantation genetic testing, which they argue allows parents to discriminate against their embryos on the basis of sex, disabilities like Down Syndrome or other factors.

How do you plan to vote on the Florida ballot measure protecting the right to abortion until fetal viability?

The Florida Supreme Court last week ruled that a measure to amend the state constitution to protect the right to abortion until viability, or about 24 weeks of pregnancy, can appear on the ballot in November. The green light for the ballot measure came the same day the state’s high court ruled that the state’s 15-week abortion ban is constitutional, setting the ball in motion for a newly enacted six-week state abortion ban to take effect on May 1.

The twin rulings have raised the stakes of the November election for abortion access in Florida. Trump, a Palm Beach resident, has not said how he will vote on the measure but called the six-week near-total ban “a terrible mistake” during the Republican presidential primary.