Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to defectively record their mortgage in reliance on a settled expectation that they could avoid the bank’s lien. We next address the presumption that an amendment altering a prior statute suggests that the legislature intended to change the meaning of the law “unless it clearly appears that the amendment was passed to clarify the legislature’s original intent.” Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Indiana Dept. of Ins., 868 N.E.2d 50, 56 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Wright v. Fowler, 459 N.E.2d 386, 389-90 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (interpreting an amendment to have changed the law in part because the assembly added categories of employers to the statute and separately added provisions to provide procedures for addressing those employers)); Olatunji v. State, 788 N.E.2d 1268, 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) . The Supreme Court of Indiana recently muddied
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a legislative amendment that appeared to approve the analysis of a recent indiana supreme court case was a clarification rather than an amendment
B. holding district court erred in relying on authority other than that of the supreme court of the united states in its analysis under  2254d
C. holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case
D. holding that the 2010 amendment was a clarification
E. holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.