[I assume you meant "not literally true".]
What it means is that Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer's entire thesis in this article falls apart. Two paragraphs down he states that "with this one mammoth financial windfall I believe the abortion-promoting elite have pushed the already-imbalanced life vs. death battle beyond the point of no-return. With Buffett’s billions Gates may be, in a strictly worldly sense, unstoppable. The culture of life simply cannot compete with this kind of money."
That might have been a plausible argument if Buffet had really combined his $37 billion contribution with Gates' existing $29 billion endowment "for the singular purpose of population control". But if only a few tens of millions of that money is going towards promoting abortions or other "population control", then there is no enormous financial imbalance in the battle over abortion, and nothing has been pushed "beyond the point of no return".
If Euteneuer wants to attack Gates for allocating less than one percent of his Foundation's resources to abortion and population control, he can plausibly do so. But he can't plausibly claim to be so overwhelmed by that relatively small amount of money that "all strictly human solutions are rendered impotent".
How about you? Is one percent enough to criticize? How about 10%? Or is there any amount large or small going to abortion you would criticize?
It seems that you have no problem with any money going to abortion but rather than stating this clearly instead harped.
I can only assume that he's honestly confused on this point. He just has no motive to make a cynical attempt to mislead -- if anything, cynicism would lead him to paint the situation as desperate, but no so bad that it can't be turned around if folks will just open their checkbooks a bit wider.