I’m trying to help clarify the limitation on what Fukino could declare based on the vital records. The divorce record to Obama’s father is missing a page ... speculated to be a copy of the birth certificate ... so theoretically Fukino could cite the birth record and the divorce record, the latter of which is under Obama’s name (since it’s the same as his father’s). And again, I’m still recalling these claims that applications, requests, receipts and post-it notes are alleged to be PART of the vital records. Fukino said these vital records were maintained by the DOH, but I don’t think she said they were maintained in accordance to state law. IOW, her lack of legal specificity could allow her to reference just about anything as a vital record maintained by the DOH. Since she stated she would add anything else to her statement, there’s no real way to get her to reveal what these alleged records are ... I’m just not convinced that it’s only the standard records she was talking about.
I guess don’t see how a divorce record would impact her statement unless the missing page was used to amend a birth record...in which case it would become part of his vital records.
I asked Fukino specifically on 7/27/09 about whether his amended birth certificate was on record in accordance to policy and procedure. The press release from that evening is what she sent me in answer to that question.
So you are correct (as far as i am concerned) they were not on record in accordance to policy and procedure.
The DOH has been using the term, “public health statistics records” (which is defined in 338-1 as including the records of processing) to refer to everything they’ve got. But 338-18(a), which restricts disclosure of anything on the record doesn’t refer to “public health statistics records”. It refers to “vital statistics records” - which is consistently used in both the rules and the statutes to refer to certificates. 338-18A governs disclosures from the certificates themselves and gives the administrative rules the authority to state what disclosures may be made, to whom, and how.
But the DOH refers to “public health statistics records” (including processing records) as though 338-18A applies to those records. It doesn’t. A is about certificates. B through F(?) are about “public health statistics records”, which includes the records of processing.
So the DOH is mixing up the terminology, the subsections of the statutes, and everything else - to obfuscate everything that comes out of their office.