Replies

Okay, so I just verified that Hawaii doesn't falsely claim birth in Hawaii when it creates a birth certificate for a foreign-born child adopted in Hawaii. Here's the link to the law:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020_0005.htm

And here's the relevant text:

The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii...The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth.

So even if Obama's BC is amended by an adoption decree, we know the birthplace could not be changed from a foreign country to Hawaii. Hence we know for sure his original BC said he was born in Hawaii.

But so what? Maybe his original BC said he was born in Hawaii, but listed his birth as unattended, as some birthers have speculated. Could an adoption decree have caused the state to falsify information about an attending physician, hospital, and the like?

The answer is no. State law says that the only information that gets deliberately falsified on an Amended BC when a child registered as being born in-state gets adopted is the child's name and the identity of the parents. The law does not allow for changing the name of the hospital, doctor, date of birth, or anything else. You can find that here:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm

Hence we can establish for sure that a) Obama's original BC said he was born in Hawaii and b) it had the same information as the recently-released document regarding the hospital, the doctor, and the like. In the unlikely event it is amended (and there is really no reason to believe it is), the only thing that might have changed are the names of the parents and perhaps the child. But none of that is relevant to Obama's eligibility.

So I'm now at a loss as to why anyone would care that Obama's BC is amended. Why do does it matter so much to you, and why have you invested so much emotional energy in it?

But so what? Maybe his original BC said he was born in Hawaii, but listed his birth as unattended, as some birthers have speculated. Could an adoption decree have caused the state to falsify information about an attending physician, hospital, and the like?

We have already established that an Adoption decree will cause the state to falsify information, now we are just quibbling over the details.

If I recall properly, she had up to a year to get the child examined by a Doctor. Strangely enough, my own birth certificate has a Doctor's signature, 6 years after the fact!

Tell me again what they won't put on a birth certificate because they are too honest?

Okay, so I just verified that Hawaii doesn't falsely claim birth in Hawaii when it creates a birth certificate for a foreign-born child adopted in Hawaii. Here's the link to the law:

I find this comment highly amusing. You "verified" by reading what the law says. Obviously no one ever deviates from those.

:)