The real problem with your post is a conflation of the Hawaii short form with the California Certified Abstract.There’s a specific reason that the California absract is not accepted for passport identification. That doesn’t mean that all short form birth certificates are invalid for that purpose.
I never said that or even intimated that. Once again, your assumptions get you into trouble. The person I was responding to believed that because people who lived generations ago didn’t have BC’s, therefore people today shouldn’t have to show their BC as proof of birth. My argument was that that argument wouldn’t work today because everyone has a BC (Yes, there are probably a few who don’t have a BC. I say this just to make it clear to anyone who enjoys misunderstanding things) and showing that BC as proof of birth is a requirement in many cases. So, for example, I told him to try to use that argument in a place like California where you must present your long form BC to obtain a US passport (for those who were born in Cali, just to make it clear to anyone who enjoys misunderstanding things). His argument obviously wouldn’t work.
The entire point of this post is that there are many cases all throughout the country (including in Hawaii itself) where a short form BC (aka COLB, abstract) is not acceptable. Why? Lots of reasons. Mostly because it’s not the best evidence of birth. The long form is! So if a COLB is sometimes not good enough to get a passport, or sign up for health insurance, or even little league, then surely a COLB could never be good enough to be President of the United States!!