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.
The law doesn’t forbid things allowed by the rules. What is forbidden is only what ISN’T authorized by the rules. There is no conflict.
A non-certified copy could not be used for identity fraud because it would not have the authenticating marks (seal and registrar’s signature). Only if you wanted to be President of the most powerful country on earth could you get away with using a non-authenticated document for identity fraud. If you wanted to play in Little League or anything else it would never work. That’s why identity fraud is not a concern.
What the BC gives that the index data doesn’t is the LEGAL STATUS of the records, because any legal disqualifiers are required to be noted on any BC the HDOH prints. And the public has a right to know the legal status. That is what the HDOH is hell-bent on hiding.