No, you don’t understand.
The hospital could most definitely have notified them.
The point is, in the State of Hawaii, foreign births could be documented.
The announcements don’t necessarily have to show births only in the state...they could also reflect births filed with the state.
It’s an important distinction. Doesn’t address the proof we’re looking for. I think we need the SCOTUS to settle the matter of proof once and for all.
I’m not disagreeing that this needs to be dealt with once and for all.
But the announcement could not be the result of a foreign birth registered with Hawaii. In order to register a foreign birth, you had to produce proof of birth, either in person or by mail. How could proof of birth in a Kenyan village first be procured in Kenyan, then mailed or brought to Hawaii, certified and sent to Bureau of Vital Statistics with in a matter of days? That’s what would have needed to happen in order to get it printed 9 days after birth.
But that ignores the fact that the woman who found these announcements researched them and determined that those in that specific Sunday column ONLY came from hospital births. Not even home births qualified since they did not go through a hospital. It was a set procedure the papers followed to get births printed; they did not seek out all births, only hospital births. Just a matter of ease and convenience to get most births printed for community interest.