Do any religions impose an obligation to judge or chastise women who have abortions?
No major religious tradition teaches an obligation to judge or shame women who have had abortions — and several (most notably Christianity through Jesus's explicit teaching and example) forbid such judgment. Religious people are free to hold their beliefs about abortion and to advocate them democratically. They are not religiously obligated to enforce shame, and constitutionally cannot use state power to do so. When the impulse to judge or punish women operates in religious language, it has departed from what every major tradition's own foundational texts teach.
Religious perspectives
This is one of the questions where religious teaching is most directly contrary to common political rhetoric. No major religious tradition teaches an obligation to judge or shame women who have had abortions — and several explicitly forbid it.
Christianity: Jesus consistently refused to condemn women in vulnerable moral circumstances. The most famous example is the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) — Jesus refused to participate in the stoning despite the legal/religious case for it, and his words were directed at the would-be judges: "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." His final words to the woman were "neither do I condemn you." This is not an isolated story; it is consistent with his teaching pattern. "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1) is direct. Paul addressed the question of how Christians should treat those outside the church: "What have I to do with judging outsiders?" (1 Corinthians 5:12) — the explicit answer was that judgment of non-believers was not the church's role.
Judaism: Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 2:4 teaches: "Do not judge your fellow until you have stood in his place." The principle of dan l'kaf z'chut requires judging others favorably — extending the most charitable interpretation to their actions. There is no Jewish obligation to enforce religious standards on non-Jews; in fact, Maimonides ruled that converting people against their will is forbidden.
Islam: The Quran is explicit: "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Judgment of human beings belongs to Allah, not to other humans. "And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness" (Quran 5:8). The Prophet Muhammad consistently extended grace rather than condemnation to those who came to him having committed serious offenses.
Buddhism and Hinduism: Both traditions teach that judgment of others is itself spiritually damaging (creates negative karma). Compassion (karuna) is the proper response to those experiencing suffering, not condemnation.
The shared insight: Religious traditions universally treat shaming women in vulnerable moral circumstances as the opposite of religious behavior. When this is done "in the name of" religion, the traditions themselves identify it as a corruption — what Christians call hypocrisy, Jews call chillul HaShem (desecration of the divine name), Muslims call nifaq (hypocrisy).
Constitutional & legal framework
The constitutional framework prohibits the government from imposing religious obligations as law — which is the bridge between the religious question of judgment and the political question of how to treat women who have abortions.
1st Amendment Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Government cannot enact one religious tradition's moral views as law applicable to citizens of all faiths and none. The Establishment Clause specifically prohibits the kind of imposition that religious-judgment frameworks would require.
1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause: Religious people are free to hold and express their religious views — including views about abortion — and to advocate through ordinary democratic participation. What they cannot do is use state power to compel others to live by religious obligations not shared.
14th Amendment Equal Protection: Laws that single out particular groups for different treatment without sufficient justification face heightened scrutiny. Criminal laws that effectively apply only to women — and that operate through stigma as much as legal penalty — raise specific equal-protection questions.
The "lobbying versus enforcing" distinction: Religious citizens may lobby for any law they believe just. This is constitutionally protected and democratically legitimate. The constitutional and theological problems arise when the law moves from policy to punishment of religious offense as such — when secular criminal authority is used to enforce specifically religious-moral judgment.
The historical American answer: The Founders' explicit choice was that no religious test (Article VI) and no establishment of religion (1st Amendment) would be allowed. American citizens of any faith may believe abortion is wrong; American law cannot make that belief the official judgment of the country, and individual religious citizens cannot use state power to enforce shame on those who disagree.
See: First Amendment → | Article VI →
Sources cited:BibleTorahQuranBuddhismConstitution