The 338-18 part that you cited was from 338-18(a), and it forbids those things EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THIS PART OR BY RULES ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.”
The rules adopted by the DOH allow for non-certified abbreviated certificates to be disclosed to anybody who asks for them, so there is nothing in 338-18(a)that even applies to non-certified abbreviated certificates.
And that's the problem I keep mentioning. The rules from the 1955 document allow things that are forbidden by the specified part of the 1977 statute. While the 1955 rules allow noncertified copies, the statute forbids all copies, excepting only certified copies to applicants who fit the requirements. It even forbids allowing anyone to "inspect" the records, which would make it strange to permit issuing an uncertified copy. To me, this raises the question of whether the 1977 statute supercedes the previous DOH rules.
Obviously, the DOH should have rewritten their rules in light of the statute. I can see all sorts of issues raised if the DOH issued noncertified copies of birth certificates to anyone who asked for one. Would schools, government bodies, commercial enterprises carefully check for certification? I would be concerned about the potential for identity theft, and perhaps the DOH or Hawaii legislature was, too. This where we need a lawyer versed in state bureaucracy to help sort this out.