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.
I see it differently - the two appear to conflict. The statute forbids anyone to even allow viewing of the certificates, so I have a hard time believing it would approve issuing noncertified copies to nonqualified applicants. Rather than asserting that I understand the legal ramifications when a statute forbids things that departmental rules from half a century ago allow, I’d like to hear from a lawyer on this.
If the HDOH had issued noncertified copies for other COLBs than Obama’s, you’d have a case for conspiracy and illegal behavior. You haven’t cited any instances of that. Until you do, I can’t see it as a conspiracy, but rather departmental mismanagement and confusion between the 1955 rules and the more recent, more restrictive statute.