“Care Policies”: The State’s Monopoly on Child-Rearing and the Fracturing of the Family

Helping those who dedicate their lives to caring for the sick or elderly is an act of basic justice. No one disputes that premise. And it is precisely this good faith that international organizations are feeding on today to push their new flagship cause: National Care Systems.

We are not talking about subsidizing daycares to give working mothers a break. The goal is much deeper. We are looking at a structural shift where the State assumes, by design, a monopoly on child-rearing, all wrapped up in a sophisticated discourse of solidarity. I have personally witnessed, at the most recent OAS assemblies and in the Virtual Community of the Summits of the Americas, that activists have no qualms about admitting it: this is their sharpest political tool. Their Trojan Horse. And while pro-life networks around the world continue to successfully fight the battles they have inherited, a new bureaucracy is advancing on a flank that few saw coming, just around the next bend.

The narrative rests on real, painful stories. They tell you about exhausted mothers caring for children with severe paralysis, or families suffocating under the weight of a grandparent’s senile dementia.

But the narrative collapses as soon as you look at the budgets. Let’s look at Uruguay, the star pupil of this model in the Americas. Where did the avalanche of millions for its brand-new Integrated Care System actually go? It didn’t reach nursing homes. It didn’t fund wheelchairs. The capital flooded early childhood. The real infrastructure was built to absorb children into public institutions from their very first months of life.

The goal isn’t to relieve the vulnerable caregiver; the ultimate end is early separation.

Agencies like ECLAC, UN Women, and the ILO hardly bother to hide the ideological scaffolding. In their own technical documents, they flaunt a revealing concept: the “defamilialization of care“[1].

For the feminist economics that currently dictates the rhythm at the United Nations, the family is not a natural refuge. It is an accounting burden. A structure of oppression. Their solution is drastic: tear the responsibility of child-rearing out of the intimacy of the home and hand it over to the State.

By confiscating children from the moment they learn to walk, the primary affective bond is fractured —along with the psychological scars that science has long documented—. Motherhood is commodified, reduced to an economic problem that must be “socialized” in state-run daycare centers. This throws the doors wide open to inject their gender agenda right from the crib, free from the inconvenient meddling of parents.

They aren’t trying to reform the family; they intend to empty it of meaning until it disappears entirely.

The clock is ticking. As high-level diplomatic sources privately confirm, the mood in New York is that the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is already paving the way for the final blow. In March 2027, they will use the review of the 2030 Agenda to step on the gas, setting their sights on the CSW 2029, a year that the UN has already officially designated to focus exclusively on the “transformation of care systems,” with the aim of imposing this transformation on a global scale.

We have to stop being naive. We must dismantle this rhetoric and call it what it is: ideological confiscation.

At Human Life International, we are intercepting this onslaught at the highest levels of diplomacy, but this alarm needs to sound in every local congress. If we surrender our inalienable right to raise our own today, tomorrow a bureaucrat will be the one deciding what to think, who to love, and which ideology the next generation must submit to.

---

[1] Defamilialization of care: A technical concept coined by feminist economics and ECLAC. It demands transferring the primary responsibility of family care to the State, seeking the economic “emancipation” of women at the cost of fracturing the natural bond of the family as the nucleus of society.