Editorial
Oh, brother, oh, sister

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

Oh, brother. And sister. And no more siblings after that.

State Rep. Maralyn Chase, an Edmonds Democrat, has introduced a bill encouraging Washington couples to have only two or fewer children. Chase got the idea from Yakima activist Ed Patton, who has been promoting limited population growth for years.

Patton and Chase correctly argue people need to talk about population growth and density — and the impacts on state budgets and natural resources.

The quibble is the way that conversation would be started. House Bill 3111 directs the secretary of health to develop and distribute a pamphlet or other educational material emphasizing the benefits and importance of couples limiting themselves to two or fewer children to promote population sustainability. This is unabashed government nannyism.

Chase doesn't expect this bill to go anywhere; she is merely trying to stir civic conversation. Great, then why bother a busy Legislature with such distractions?

Family planning is a personal decision. Couples make the call based on a variety of private factors. Government need not butt in on the decision.

The birth rate in many countries, in Spain and Italy, for example, has declined to sustainable levels, largely because individual couples decided to have fewer children for economic and quality-of-life reasons, not because of a state-sponsored pamphlet.

If Patton wants to promote his cause, one of his friends or relatives, hopefully from an acceptable two-child family, should lend him a card table so he can sit outside the grocery store and distribute "two or fewer" pamphlets.

There is nothing wrong with discussing appropriate family size, even promoting sustainable population levels.

But state lawmakers should not fritter away valuable time during a short session wringing hands over the recommended size of a family.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company