Summary
The Biden administration announced it will support a new Syrian government that renounces terrorism, protects women’s and minority rights, and dismantles chemical weapons.
This follows the ouster of Bashar al-Assad by the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which the U.S. designated as a terrorist organization in 2018.
While the U.S. may reassess HTS’s status, ongoing concerns about ISIS resurgence and regional instability persist.
Meanwhile, Israel has seized the Golan Heights buffer zone amid condemnation, and Biden is coordinating with allies, including Israel, on the evolving situation in Syria and Gaza.
The intent of those laws isn’t to hurt women or reduce their protections. Those laws are intended to protect what the law makers view as children from being murdered by the women. They are just implemented in a really poor way resulting in those horrible scenarios.
Given gow horribly thwy are implemented, it’s hard to accept it isn’t intentionally being cruel.
Definitely possible but I’m a fan of Hanlon’s Razor unless evidence shows otherwise.
Here’s some evidence for you: a 10 year old rape victim in Ohio was forced to travel to Indiana for an abortion, since Ohio had a blanket ban on all abortion at the time. The doctor that performed the abortion in Indiana was investigated and fined, and still faces harassment to this day. For performing an abortion for a 10 year old rape victim.
Firstly, that’s not evidence. You need to provide an article or something along those lines to provide evidence. That being said, I also don’t doubt what you say. However you are claiming they did it with the specific intent of hurting that 10 year old and people like her. What evidence do you have of that? All you have shown is that in the act of protecting the fetus, the would-be mother and doctor got hurt. That’s not the same thing.