Non-certified abbreviated birth certificates are actually still supposed to be discloseable to anybody who asks for them. If you look at HRS 338-18(a) it restricts the HDOH from disclosing information from a vital record except as authorized by HRS 338-18 OR BY HDOH RULES DULY APPROVED.
Although those rules are supposed to be posted on the HDOH website at all times, Fukino hid them until about a year after the 2008 election. It took 3 months of haggling before the HDOH would even tell us WHAT RULES WERE IN EFFECT and then eventually post them as required by law.
One of the reasons I believe she hid them is because it says there that anybody can receive a non-certified copy of an abbreviated certificate (the abstract version, which is the only kind authorized in the rules to be by computer rather than photocopy or microfilm copy.
I’ve got stuff posted about this at my blog. Maybe I can go on my daughter’s computer and find a link. My computer freezes up anytime I go on my own blog. sigh.
The HI Ombudsman’s office - Alfred Itamura, to be exact, with the response cleared through Ombudsman Robyn Matsunaga (IIRC) - let me know that the HDOH was “not unreasonable” for saying they couldn’t disclose the non-certified abbreviated certs I requested, because the rules say those MAY be disclosed/issued rather than saying they SHALL be. But Itamura knows as well as me that UIPA says anything that CAN be disclosed MUST be disclosed. So basically the Ombudsman’s Office agreed that the HDOH CAN disclose those records to anybody who asks - contrary to what the HDOH routinely claims. And UIPA thus REQUIRES them to disclose it upon request.
I’ve got a link to the Administrative Rules on my blog, or you can get to it from the HDOH’s website if you know how to dig for it. Let me know if you’d like to see any of this and I’ll see if I can get to the links on my daughter’s computer.
BTW, those rules went into effect in 1976.