Because the article shows that that is the case, it will happen regardless of "moral education" just as there will always be people that need insulin.
So, following your claim of utilitarianism earlier, this means we shouldn't ban it as using resources to ban it does not provide any utilitarian benefit, to say nothing of the negative effects. In the same way that banning insulin wouldn't change its consumption, just drive the purchase of it underground where it is more dangerous and less regulated, banning abortion indisputably leads to dangerous, underground uses of a service that is consistently needed.
Following the above two paragraphs, It follows, then, that banning certain services that are consistently needed, such as insulin drugs or abortions, only leads to more issues that are not beneficial to anyone. Given that these services will always be needed in one form or another, it makes sense that rather than banning those services we instead provide said services in a safe, controlled environment. Even better would be to work on services and policies that would make the need for those other services not as necessary, for example work on sex education, healthcare, condom distribution, etc... have all shown to lower pregnancies and abortions.
