On the contrary, no one has suggested ignoring the one percent they are devoting to abortion-related grants. What I and several others have objected to is mischaracterizing that one percent as a hundred percent (the "singular purpose of population control"). That would be equivalent to accusing the priesthood of having the "singular purpose of molesting children" and condemning all priests and everything they do on that basis.
Employing such lies and incredible exaggerations do not help one's cause. We can criticize the evil that child-molesting priests do without having to condemn all priests or claim that they are all child molesters.
The central problem with Euteneuer's article is that his conclusion does depend on making just such a sweeping and inaccurate generalization. He is positing that it is futile to fight in a worldly away against such overwhelming financial resources, i.e., the addition of Buffett's $37 billion to the Gates Foundation's $29 billion. But if less than one percent of that money is involved in abortion or population control, then his argument falls apart.
It would be similar to arguing that the Catholic Church should be abolished because all of the priests in it are child molesters and therefore it is futile to try to root out the corruption. That argument falls apart if only one percent of the priests are child molesters. Nor would pointing out the ludicrousness of such an argument in any way imply that the one percent of priests who are indeed child molesters should not be rooted out.
OK. I can understand that. However, to me that is a minor issue, as the population control aspect is probably the most important. Once you get into that activity, nothing else one does can erase that.
No kidding. It's as if he'd like to see all the other good wiped off the board. Might be his fascination with that foreign Linux software, which competes with Microsoft, you'll see it mentioned in his tagline.