Another year, another raped child whose fraught circumstances have inflamed public opinion and focused international attention on abortion in Ireland. Politicians at Leinster House were rightly appalled that a 13-year-old child from the travelling community had become the magnifying lens through which the public viewed their most recent failure as legislators. The opposition parties reached for sackcloth and ashes and blamed the Minister for Health and Children for the shambles that had overtaken them.

In response, Brian Cowen promised consultation, a Government Green Paper, consensus and a new referendum of some sort.

Mr Cowen did not want to talk about the specific case of the raped child, which had shocked him. He didn't want to address termination. He wished to give the child and her parents "time and space" in which to decide what to do.

The courts were being asked only to deal with the care of the child, he said, and he did not know if any other matter would arise.

If such a "matter" did arise, and the child and her parents opted for termination, would the Eastern Health Board facilitate that decision, Joe Higgins asked. He was followed by Liz McManus, Alan Shatter and Derek McDowell who spoke of the need for non-directive counselling, for Government action and for facilitating the family in whatever choice was made.

The Minister for Health and Children ducked the issue. He did not say the Eastern Health Board was precluded by law from facilitating an abortion. And while Mr Cowen took umbrage at the notion of a pregnant child being "interned" in this country, he offered nothing but "time and space" as a solution to the dilemma.

You could hear the gears of intransigence and disputation beginning to grind on both sides of the abortion issue even before the Minister sat down. The very notion of reaching consensus on such a divisive issue flew in the face of the sour experience generated by the referendums of 1982 and 1992.

But Bertie Ahern had promised to revisit the issue before the general election. But just what he would do as Taoiseach had remained vague. The party would "take the necessary action" in relation to abortion, the Fianna Fail manifesto had stated, in a come-on to disaffected anti-abortionists.

Mr Ahern later mentioned the possibility of another constitutional referendum on abortion, or the use of Article 27 of the Constitution, which on the face of it would allow the public to adjudicate on legislation reflecting the Supreme Court decision in the X case before it became law. But it was all terribly vague.

There was little more clarity or urgency yesterday when Mr Cowen said he would report to Cabinet on preparations for a Green Paper in two weeks. He would also seek submissions from interested parties and, on publication, the Green Paper would be referred to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution.

But the manure really hit the fan when he spoke of what would happen after that. The Minister's confirmation of the referendum route caused the opposition parties to accuse him of abdicating his legislative responsibilities. But Mr Cowen was not to be deterred.

The required change could be made by way of a constitutional referendum accompanied by heads of legislation - the approach that failed in 1992 - or by way of Article 27 of the Constitution, which could involve the Supreme Court, the President and a referendum.

It is hard to see Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats returning to the scene of their 1992 defeat, when the electorate rejected a proposal which would limit abortion to those cases where the life, rather that the health of the mother, was threatened.

Back then, the coalition government published the heads of legislation that would be enacted if that referendum was defeated. It was beaten decisively. But nothing was done.

On this occasion, it seems Fianna Fail is determined to confuse with complexity. Article 27 provides for the most indirect and sloothery method possible in passing legislation. The Oireachtas takes a back seat and defers to the electorate.

It is a kind of backdoor referendum, involving passing the legislation by the Dail; its reference to the Supreme Court to test its Constitutionality, followed by a request to the President, Mrs McAleese, by a majority of the Seanad and one-third of the Dail to refer the Bill to the people for final arbitration.

The complications do not even stop there. Article 47.2 of the Constitution provides that a defeat of such legislation requires more than a simple majority. Such a result would also require its rejection by one-third of the electorate. Its only saving grace is that the Bill at issue would not itself become part of the Constitution.

Article 27 is such a convoluted mechanism, with such room for disputation and strife, that it has never been used by any government in the last 60 years. Bringing it into play regarding abortion might appear, at first sight, to be a clever political ploy. But a deeply disillusioned - and divided - electorate deserves better.