Ruling from the chair (or my two cents, anyway):
Bgwah's amendment, if passed, would indeed remove clause 11 from the bill.
Amendments that only quote the section(s) they modify, even when it's not made explicit, still implicitly modify the relevant sections without removing the other parts from the bill. Note in the amendment you quoted earlier today, Yankee: it's obvious you don't want to strike sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 from the bill, because you kept 7 and 10 numbered the same and made no mention of renumbering or striking anything.
Bgwah's amendment, in contrast, lists sections 1 through 10 just to change a single word on each line (when it's often standard protocol to say something to the effect of, "amend the bill to replace all occurrences of the word "photo" to "portrait") and it seems to intentionally list off number 11. Regardless of the intent, however, in offering the amendment bgwah said, "I would to amend it to read as follows" where it can only reasonably mean the bill as a whole.
How's that for some analysis? Yankee, with all the confusion over everything this session I'm beginning to think you intentionally look for gray areas in the OSPR just to test me
