Every election year you can expect to hear about the same issues in Iowa — the budget problems and the economic status of the state. Such topics are likely more important now than ever considering the economic recession occurring within our boundaries, and from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Still, it seems one issue stands alone in the Iowa races: abortion.

This is the epitome of one-issue voting. The candidate will run saying he/she is pro-life or pro-choice, and the constituent will vote based solely on the candidate’s views on this one question. It would be crazy to think the elections next week would not focus on abortion, even with the country on the brink of war and workers being laid off nationwide. Sadly, abortion is a main issue in at least 8 states.

The main race in Iowa focusing on this issue is that between senatorial opponents Greg Ganske and Tom Harkin. Republican Ganske is against abortion, Democrat Harkin is for the right of free choice.

Ganske is pushing to the forefront the fact he has voted for banning human cloning, partial-birth abortions banning minors from crossing state lines to receive an abortion. Harkin has run ads stating he is also against partial-birth abortions, but beyond that he is for women’s choice.

The problem lies not within the ideas being proposed by the candidates. There is nothing that says any piece of these ideas are unconstitutional, even banning partial-birth abortions. It is true that in 2000 the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law which banned the procedure.

However, the reason for striking down the law had to do with the statute missing a provision allowing such a procedure if the health of the mother was at stake. This was essential criteria put forth by Roe v. Wade. It is unlikely the Nebraska law would have been struck down if this simple provision had been contained within the text.

The real problem rests with candidates running on an issue to divide the voters, as opposed to running on an important one. A pro-life advocate may preach that abortion is a priority, considering that babies are dying. But let us not ignore that people are dying in the Mideast, including Americans. Terrorists are attacking worldwide from Bali to Kuwait, and our senatorial runners are worrying about an issue that will likely never see the light of day in Congress.

It is sad that these candidates will be getting votes based solely on how they view a human fetus. Ignore Iraq, the budget cuts, the tuition hikes and vote on who matches your right-to-life theories. This, at least, seems to be the concept that Ganske and Harkin are banking on their course to the U.S. Senate.

Editorial Board:Cavan Reagan, Amber Billings, Rachel Faber Machacha, Charlie Weaver, Zach Calef, Ayrel Clark.