But advocates disagree that with the assertion that the morning-after pill is abortion.
"[The morning-after pill] is a safe and effective way to prevent an unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex or a contraception failure," said Rachel Huff, education and outreach director of West Virginia Free. The pill won't end a pregnancy, she said.
"To make any other assertion is going against modern medicine and science," Huff said.
Holland is the first person in the state to file such a lawsuit, but his joins 61 other cases and more than 200 other plaintiffs nationwide who contend that the HHS mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and freedom of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Perry Bryant, executive director of West Virginians for Affordable Health Care, said he expects the Supreme Court to eventually rule on the mandate because there have been so many challenges. Places of worship are exempt from the mandate, but faith-based universities, hospitals and some businesses have challenged the mandate, he said.
"Some people make it a black-and-white issue and to me, it's not," Bryant said. "There are religious issues here and there's public health here. Anytime you have two very legitimate issues, trying to draw a dividing line between them is always very touchy."
Bryant didn't say whether he thought the mandate was unconstitutional.
"I'm not a constitutional scholar," Bryant said. "I don't think that employers can pick and choose what types of health care they can provide to their employees and which they can't."
Reach Lori Kersey at lori.ker...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1240.