Publishing an article is a legal challenge in court?
This man's legal argument is not really about abortion.
The argument this man is making is that the entire foundation of enforceable SCOTUS rulings is wrong. He is arguing that SCOTUS and all lessor courts do not have the authority to interpret laws, their meaning and their constitutionality.
In his thinking, he, or someone else would decide what laws mean. That is a dictatorship. If it was Congress, Pelosi and Reid would be deciding what you could read, travel, do business, what was a crime, etc.
He also makes the foolish ultra-strict constitutional constructionist argument. This is very dangerous as well. For example, the first amendment guarantees “Freedom of the Press.” But what guarantees freedom of expression on Radio and TV? What guarantees us freedom of expression on FR? The Courts have held that Freedom of the Press means freedom in the media that were not in place when the 1st Amendment was passed, because, after all, radio, TV and the Internet do not use presses!
What in the Constitution allows for the regulation of aircraft, the broadcast airways, cars, trucks, and so much more? What about Brown v. the Board of Education? All these are not addressed in the Constitution, but are subject to rulings of SCOTUS.
It all boils down to the reality that someone must make decisions, and when they are made, they must be enforceable. In our system, that is the courts. Can you imagine if that power was vested today in the Executive (Obama) or Legislature?
Although he can argue the point all he wants, and be as right as he wants to be on the issue of Roe v. Wade and abortion in general, he is very wrong that SCOTUS rulings are not the law of the land.