Concerns Raised by Ministry of Women’s Staff Over Judith Marín’s Appointment

Original article: «Puso en duda la existencia de la institucionalidad que ahora dirige»: Declaración de las funcionarias del Ministerio de la Mujer por designación de Judith Marín

PUBLIC STATEMENT
Association of Employees at the Ministry of Women and Gender Equity
Santiago, January 21, 2026

Judith Marín (Christian Social Party) has taken the helm of the Ministry of Women and Gender Equity with a political background that raises eyebrows. In 2025, she publicly suggested that the ministry should be «evaluated,» hinting at potential elimination or merger as part of state spending cuts.

It is crucial to remember that this institution is not merely a symbol or a «luxury»; it represents over 35 years of state policy shaped by the efforts of numerous women, technical teams, and grassroots organizations—feminist, community, trade union, human rights, and territorial groups—that have advocated for its establishment and strengthening to address inequality and violence.

The issue is not her faith or personal identity. The concern lies in her interpretation of «women’s policy,» particularly given that she questioned the very existence of the institution she now leads before taking office. In Chile, the ministry is not symbolic; it is a political gateway for coordinating programs executed at the territorial level (through SernamEG), which practically support the survival and autonomy of women in critical situations.

When the power dynamic suggests that this institution “maybe doesn’t work” and opens the door to fusion, refocusing, or cuts, the message received by frontline workers (centers, residences, teams) is harsh: their work may be subordinated to austerity or political priorities that overlook everyday problems.

Here lies an unavoidable tension. Marín has made her anti-abortion stance clear, and her political-religious environment has mobilized around this issue. However, abortion under three circumstances has been legal in Chile since 2017 (vital risk, lethal fetal inviolability, and pregnancy from rape). What happens when the authority expected to guarantee “gender equity” aligns politically with restricting—or moralizing—decisions that disproportionately affect poorer, rural, adolescent women, and survivors of sexual violence? The usual scenario unfolds: those with resources resolve their issues quietly; those without pay with their health, risk, clandestine actions, or forced motherhood.

Moreover, not all undermining of an institution occurs through explicit cuts. Sometimes it is simpler and more damaging: deprioritizing, delaying, replacing a rights-based approach with one focused on “family” and “values,” or transforming a ministry into an ornamental apparatus without the capacity to encourage intersectoral coordination (health, justice, education, labor). When this occurs, public policy ceases to address structural inequality and shifts to addressing “individual behaviors.