Yes, and that's why you pay for it. Yet here is somebody complaining about that.
If you e.g. can't be bothered to do continuous integration or automated testing, then you might consider RHEL with it's life cycle to be an acceptable alternative. Which is fine. Just be ready to pay for that service.
Similarly, if you wanted continued Python 2 support, you could have donated time or money towards that goal. I would be surprised if anybody complaining did that. There's just not that much business value in dragging legacy Python further along.
The RHEL life cycle is based on real business needs (and a real business need to balance between newer releases/features and stable environments).
Not on some decree from above that "you should use this new thing".