I don't think the two sentences are contradictory, although omitting the "could identify no circumstances" one of them does change the "tone" of the report.
[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.An intact D&X,, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.
As for why ACOG would agree to make the change, and radically change the tenor of the report, they are a pro-abortion organization. They are not neutral, as a policy matter, and only a fool would take them to be as such. The judge that lauded ACOG for its "objectivity" and "neutrality" was likewise engaging in policy-making, and wanted his decision to withstand appellate scrutiny.
ACOG is no more neutral than is the AMA, or the ABA. All of those professional organizations are agenda-driven.
I should have known that ACOG, fitting the mold of many "professional" associations, would tilt to the left. The only honor is amongst the theives who are all taking us in the same direction -- over a cliff. Thanks for your input.