You need to look at the wording of the verification and the Hawaii law on letters of verification.
First the law:
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]
Then from the certified letter of verification sent to SoS Bennett.
“A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Even if this was an adoption birth certificate the place of birth would not change.
And the Bennett letter of verification goes on to verify that the Hospital was “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” and no this could not be the hospital that he was taken days or weeks after he was born and examined.
The hospital’s name is part of the birth certificate form item 6.
6a - Place of Birth, City, Town or Rural Location
6b - Island
6c - Hospital or Institution (if not in hospital or institution give street address)
6d - Inside or outside city limits
I have no doubt that a Hawaiian Birth certificate would INDICATE that someone might have been born in Hawaii, but INDICATE does not have the same meaning as the word "Prove" or "Demonstrate", it means "Might be."
Given that Hawaii will issue birth certificates to people who were not actually born in Hawaii, this "Indicate" word has even less meaning as proof than it would in a state that does not do this very weird thing.
Even if this was an adoption birth certificate the place of birth would not change.
And how do we know that this is true? I certainly do not know that this is true. What proof do we have that a state which issues birth certificates to people who were not actually born in that state, will not also fudge the place of birth in the case of adoptions?
And the Bennett letter of verification goes on to verify that the Hospital was “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” and no this could not be the hospital that he was taken days or weeks after he was born and examined.
Up to a year, last time I checked the Hawaiian law on the topic. And Yes, wherever he is examined, can be listed as the place of birth, and whomever the doctor was that examined can be listed as the attending physician at birth.
Hawaiian law allows for lots of fudging of vital statistics details. There are those who assert this is by intent, because after World War II, Hawaii became a processing house for back door American Citizenship for the entire pacific rim.
When you claim any child born on a ship in route to Hawaii, it gives you a lot of leeway to make any child an American Citizen if people want it bad enough.