El Gato, OK, I stand corrected. The point I was making was since it was publicly released, I would think the Dept Of Information would be hard-pressed to make a case that it is “private” or “confidential” information...and if it’s not confidential nor private, then they “should” be able to comment on it. I think in the manual, there are guidelines that if the State cannot release information (whether personal or governmental) they are required to explain why. That is, “court order”, “privacy”, etc. To date, I have never heard that the vital records are sealed by a court order, but if they use that a reason not to release them, then we can at least state them as source for the info.
Maybe, before we die, someone in the MSM (other than Dobbs) might see the irony in the quote from an article below:
During the 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama claimed that his administration would be transparent. He even posted his promise for transparency on the White House website. On that site, the following can be found:
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.”
Thx for your reply and the correction.
There in lies the effectiveness if the certificate issue.