Fukino & the governor have made it clear in their public statements that state law restricts public access to his (and everyone else's) birth records.
Further, if you read the statute below you will see that the State is obligated to (”Must always”) release records by virtue of the fact that they made ‘information available to the public’ by Ms. Fukino’s public announcements from last year AND this year.
I seriously doubt that that statute overrides the privacy statute. In general, and for good reason, privacy statutes trump everything else when it comes to release of information to the public.
I have a new found respect for your statements & replies.
However, I do not believe that 92F12 (15) is superseded by a privacy statement.
92F-12 (15) dogmatically states that “records...must always” be disclosed, and further, in the title statement for 92F-12, it specfically states:
“An exception only applies where it is referred to in that list.”
There is NO mention of a ANY (privacy) exemption in the list on item #15.
So, it seems to me, if what you stated was true, there wouldn’t even be a 92F-12, because the privacy statute would supersede ANY and EVERY point in the manual.
Respectfuly submitted.