China changes its 1-child policy to allow 2 children if one parent was an only child.

I can't tell from the CNN report what happens where both parents were only children, but I'm guessing the rule is a maximum of 2 children, and that rule applies if either or both parents were only children.

And, for what it's worth: China announces it's abolishing labor camps. 

ADDED: Here's a more substantial article:

For decades, most urban couples have been restricted to having one child. That has been changing slowly in some cities, which have had rules on the books that couples can have two children if both parents are single children. That policy will be further relaxed nationwide. Many rural couples already have two, or sometimes more, children....

If carried through, the relaxation would mark the first significant nationwide easing of family-size restrictions that were put in place from the 1970s, said Wang Guangzhou, a demographer at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.

“This is the first time that a central document has clearly proposed allowing two children when a husband or wife is an only child," said Mr. Wang, in a telephone interview. “Now it’s just talking about launching this, but the specific policies have to be developed at the operational level.”

I note that if a couple has that second child, they are depriving their own first child of the right to have more than one child (unless that child marries an only child).


On the labor camps, the new rule is:

“Abolish the system of re-education through labor,” said the decision, which proposed expanding community correction to partly replace the system.

“This is a significant step forward,” said Nicholas Bequelin, a senior researcher who specializes on China with Human Rights Watch, an advocacy organization with headquarters in New York.

“It doesn’t mean that China is going to be kinder to dissent and to its critics,” said Mr. Bequelin. “But it’s an important step to do away with a system that not only profoundly violated human rights, but was also standing in the way of any further legal reform.”