...AND a person could call in to have an announcement placed. As long as the announcement was just the little one, name/address/gender/DOB, there was no charge. They knew whomever called to place it was likely to be buying up several papers, so it was like a courtesy thing. Especially back when.
Sorry, but that is just confusing the issue more, IT HAS TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER. Either the announcements were ALL PLACED FROM A LIST - 16,500 OF THEM FOR 1961 - OR PARENTS/RELATIVES PLACED THEM.
I am not doubting there WAS a LIST. It just wasn't USED to place birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers.
And now I am outa here...
I think to expect every new parent to call up the newspaper a week after they have a baby, and request the ad to be put in is not realistic.
As I have personally had the experience of having a child and having his announcement printed in the paper without having called up the paper - well, it seems I may know a little about how it can work. Three children, all three in the newspaper and I never called the paper once. The hospital included my permission along with my other records to the Vital Stats people.
Not to say that a grandparent couldn’t have called it in. Or a parent who had a home birth. How is there being TWO ways for the announcements to be published so very complicated?
Good grief, things don’t come wrapped up in nice little packages. Sometimes there really is more than one answer.
And neither of these, nor both of them together, make it complicated.
It’s only complicated if you insist it must be one way or the other. The pattern of announcements supports that these can indeed have come from a list compiled by, and made available to the papers by, the Vital Stats office.
There is nothing that supports the theory that they are only submitted by the parents after they have taken baby home.
Now, did I think the whole original story by Starfelt was bull? Yes. I have always felt it was suspect. But, for more than the simple reason that “she” put forth the notion that these could only be supplied by the DOH. That was weak on the face, and clearly supplied as a talking point for the obots to dismiss that the grandparents could have requested the announcements. She claimed a lot of other false things to.
Here is what she said to a person who supposedly interviewed her. I didn’t screenshot or archive the link, because back when I began working on this I simply didn’t know how to do those things. This is what I copied and pasted from an interview someone had with Starfelt:
“”Lori (Starfelt), the researcher, explains:
“In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth. That suggests the hospital.””
But notice she uses the word “suggests”. That reminds me of the evasive way the Hawaiian officials spoke on the topic. She also went into way more detail about birth outside a hospital than makes sense for a “PUMA” who made an offhand request for a birth announcement, and was given said announcement. It isn’t “natural”. Something about her whole speech seems very contrived. Lot of double speak too.