Vital Records in Hawaii

24 Responses to Vital Records in Hawaii

1. 

   GeorgetownJD May 17, 2011 at 10:43 am #

   You mean the “attending physician” who signs a birth certificate is .. is .. is … the one who attended the birth? Well, whadya know.
2. 

   Nobody May 17, 2011 at 11:10 am #

   –Birther mode On

   But the congratulation section on page 156 mentions the Nordyke twins but not Obama. Therefore Obama was not born in Hawaii.

   –Birther mode Off
3. 

   Dr. Conspiracy May 17, 2011 at 11:44 am #

   Did you see the cameo appearance by Dr. Rodney T. West?
4. 

   gorefan May 17, 2011 at 11:53 am #

   Cool, Hennessy ad.
5. 

   Wile E. May 17, 2011 at 11:53 am #

   Dr. Conspiracy:
   Did you see the cameo appearance by Dr. Rodney T. West?

   Yep……and Dr. Sinclair as well.
6. 

   Majority Will May 17, 2011 at 11:56 am #

   Nobody:
   –Birther mode On

   But the congratulation section on page 156 mentions the Nordyke twins but not Obama.Therefore Obama was not born in Hawaii.

   –Birther mode Off

   That’s exactly the kind of illogical thinking prevalent in birtherdom. Sad, really.
7. 

   El Diablo Negro May 17, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

   gorefan:
   Cool, Hennessy ad.

   I like the ad also, even though I wont drink it.
8. 

   1% Silver Nitrate May 17, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

   Of course. This is the professional journal of the Hawaii Medical Association. When they note personal & professional milestones in their pages, these will deal only with their membership. I wouldn’t expect to find congratulations for recent births extended to members of the Hawaii Dental Association or the Hawaii Association of Radical Islamic Marxist-Socialist Foreign-Born Graduate Students.
9. 

   Rickey May 17, 2011 at 12:25 pm #

   It should be pointed out that the article identifies Charles G. Bennett as “Chief of the Bureau of Health Statistics, Department of Health.” This explains the use of the word “bureau” in the headline over the birth announcements in The Sunday Advertiser. The headline says “Health Bureau Statistics.” This appears to be further confirmation that the birth announcements in the newspaper came directly from the Department of Health.

   http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
10. 

    nemocapn May 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm #

    Is Kelth around? He got a copy of the medical portion of his Michigan birth certificate. When I heard that it’s available, I decided to get mine for the medical history. I told my mother the medical section is available, and she wanted hers, too.

    She contacted the county registrar. They told her there’s no such thing as a medical section on a birth certificate. They’ve never seen one. She insisted there is, and they told her to try the state. I contacted the Michigan Department of Community Health which maintains vital records. I asked them when the state began recording the medical section. I also asked if my mother and I could obtain ours from the state since the county says they don’t have it.

    They replied:

    “Birth certificates and the information recorded on them has changed numerous times over the years. These records are commonly filed in multiple formats, even within the same year. So, it would be hard to help you without more information.”

    I provided MDCH with the information they requested and the response was:

    “The information reported in the medical section of a birth certificate was
    removed form [sic] the legal portion of the certificate in 1950. For birth records
    since that time, the medical information can not be obtained through this
    office. What medical information we might have on your birth would require a
    court order for it to be released to you.”

    They never did answer when they first started recording the medical section. They also didn’t say whether anyone born before 1950 can get the medical section, so I wrote back to get that clarified.

    Kelth didn’t say anything about getting a court order, and he was born in 1951. I’d like to know whether he got his birth certificate with the medical section from the county registrar or the MDCH. Based on the information from MDCH, one of the following has to be true:

    1) Kelth had a court order
    2) Kelth was mistakenly given the medical section of his BC when he wasn’t supposed to get it
    3) The MDCH registrar is mistaken that you can get the medical section only with a court order
11. 

    Dr. Conspiracy May 17, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    The medical section is not usually available; however, court orders always get attention.
12. 

    Wile E. May 17, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    Further confirmation of what many had speculated…..”in Honolulu, the local registrar is a
    full-time employee within the Bureau of Health Statistics.”

    Meanwhile over at the Corsi-Farah Combine, this article is somehow further proof of a fraudulent registration number….

    “Some have speculated that even though Obama’s birth certificate was received by the registrar Aug. 8, 1961, the registration number could have been assigned a few days later by a clerk processing a batch that included the Nordyke twins’ birth records.

    But a 1955 article by Charles Bennett, Hawaii’s registrar general in 1961, and George Tokuyama, chief of the registration and records section for the state’s Department of Health, stated birth certificates were numbered immediately upon acceptance by the registrar-general…………Bennett’s and Tokuyama’s description of this procedure shows that birth certificates were numbered upon acceptance by the registrar-general, and there was no provision that would allow an accepted birth certificate to be put in a pile for three days before a number was stamped on it.”

    Apparently, bald-faced lies are still ok…..as long as the bold-print headline has a question mark at the end.

    .
13. 

    The Magic M May 17, 2011 at 3:02 pm #

    > But the congratulation section on page 156 mentions the Nordyke twins but not Obama. Therefore Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    Especially since everyone knew Obama would become President one day (since that what the conspiracy already intended back then), so it’s double curious he wasn’t mentioned.

    Of course, had he been mentioned, it would be a forgery or not prove his Hawaiian birth at all. You know the drill…
14. 

    Dr. Conspiracy May 17, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

    Am I suffering from confirmation bias and willful blindness, or is there really nothing about certificate numbering in the article?
15. 

    Judge Mental May 17, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    A Medical Journal written by and for those working in the medical field prints congratulations to four doctors who became parents of a new born……but didn’t print any congratulations to the dozens of people in Hawaii who became parents of a new born around the same time but who do not work in the medical field.

    Shock! Horror! Probe! Conspiracy! How can this possibly be?
16. 

    Greg May 17, 2011 at 3:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Am I suffering from confirmation bias and willful blindness, or is there really nothing about certificate numbering in the article?

    I, too, am unable to find anything about the numbering of birth certificates. Maybe they’re mis-representing the section on death certificates, which says that a burial/disposal permit must be issued immediately upon receipt of the death certificate.
17. 

    Wile E. May 17, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Am I suffering from confirmation bias and willful blindness, or is there really nothing about certificate numbering in the article?

    According to the Corsi-Farah Combine……”Here is the critical paragraph:

    A nurse or clerk in the hospital fills in the certificate form and gets the mother to sign it. Then the attending physician enters certain medical data and affixes his signature. Finally the hospital sends the completed certificate to the local registrar.”

    Bizarre, right? I even printed it out, brushed it with lemon juice, and held it up to a light….still nothing.

    Apparently, reading comprehension is not a prerequisite for writing a best-seller……or purchasing one.
18. 

    gorefan May 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Am I suffering from confirmation bias and willful blindness, or is there really nothing about certificate numbering in the article?

    And that still doesn’t explain Stig Waidelich’s BC. Born August 5th, date filed August 8th, cert #: 010920.
19. 

    Reality Check May 19, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    Kate520 on TFB had an interesting suggestion. Is it possible that the same bates stamp was used for all vital records including births, deaths, marriages, and divorces? In other words at the same time they are recorded they are stamped then filed in a book as appropriate. I would be interested in Doc’s comment on that theory.
20. 

    Reality Check May 19, 2011 at 8:47 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Am I suffering from confirmation bias and willful blindness, or is there really nothing about certificate numbering in the article?

    You have to remember the intended audience. They will never read the referenced document. They will rely on Corsi to interpret it for them.
21. 

    Dr. Conspiracy May 19, 2011 at 9:01 am #

    Reality Check: Kate520 on TFB had an interesting suggestion. Is it possible that the same bates stamp was used for all vital records including births, deaths, marriages, and divorces? In other words at the same time they are recorded they are stamped then filed in a book as appropriate. I would be interested in Doc’s comment on that theory.

    Certificate numbers for different events (births, deaths, …) each have their own number series. That is there will be a birth 1, 2, 3 and a death 1, 2, 3. While the same numbering machine could be used for both, that would require resetting the machine over and over again, which is an error-prone process and one I think pretty unlikely.

    Looking at the certificate number statistically, one finds that the Obama number is approximately equal to the number of births (not births + deaths) expected to have occurred up to August 4 in 1961. I did the math here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/obama-birth-certificate-number-proves-its-a-fake-busted/
22. 

    Reality Check May 19, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    OK, makes sense. I agree that they would have almost certainly used separate stamps if events are classified and numbered sequentially. I suspect the work was separated to different clerks. So the only simple explanation for the Waidelich/Obama/Nordyke numbers is some sort of weekly batching process? Do you think they are filed by certificate number then indexed? So if you went to “the big Hawaii book of births” for August 1961 you would find the Nordykes’ form filed just ahead of Obama’s.
23. 

    Wile E. May 19, 2011 at 11:10 am #

    Reality Check: You have to remember the intended audience. They will never read the referenced document. They will rely on Corsi to interpret it for them.

    It seems that is exactly what is happening. It is obscenely obvious.

    Also, FWIW…I found this sentence from the article useful for those interested in the idea that the original birth form would include additional medical data that would be cropped out when making a certified copy. As the doctor would most likely not take the form to a typewriter in order to enter the data, it also helps in explaining the whole “half-written/half-typed” angle.

    “Then the attending physician enters certain medical data and affixes his signature.”
24. 

    Expelliarmus May 19, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    Reality Check: So the only simple explanation for the Waidelich/Obama/Nordyke numbers is some sort of weekly batching process? Do you think they are filed by certificate number then indexed? So if you went to “the big Hawaii book of births” for August 1961 you would find the Nordykes’ form filed just ahead of Obama’s.

    I suggested earlier that the certificates were loosely filed alphabetically in a sorter as they come in, and then batched for processing and indexing. By “loosely” filed, I was thinking of something like a shelving unit with separate cubby shelves for various letters of the alphabet (A, B, C). I posited that because that would simply be easiest – an employee takes in a couple of certs coming from “Nordyke” and sticks them on the “N” shelf, “Obama” goes over on the O shelf. Within each shelf their may not be further organization — if “O’Neal” has a baby, then that certificate might get put right on top of the Obama cert on the O shelf, and when paperwork is pulled out for numbering and indexing, because it is on top it could end up with a lower number.

    The reason this is an easy system is that the employee who takes in the certs doesn’t have to do anything other than possibly log the name & date of birth in some sort of diary or entry book,, and then stick it on a shelf. If anyone asks for it,, it will be easy to find by a quick search through a handful of docs that end up on each shelf.

    Then the physical numbering and indexing is done in batches because it is more efficient for an employee to sit with the bates stamp, a set of index cards, and a stack of documents than it is to have it all done one at a time. For each number, there will be at least one index card with the child’s last name. Then, down the line, when someone wants the record, the card system is used to locate the certificate number.

    We know that the certificates themselves are kept in bound books — so the other 2 steps I see in the process are (a) microfilming each certificate, and (b) binding them — so there it also makes sense to have a stack of docs to work with rather than each certificate being handled piecemeal.

    Keep in mind that a bates stamp can be set so that it stamps the same number more than once before incrementing — so it is very possible for the employee to sit at a desk, type an index card with the name “Obama” on it, then stamp the Obama certificate and also stamp the Obama index card before moving on to the next document in their stack.