That was a singularly uninformative advocacy piece.
Moran's law would ban all cosmetics testing on animals in the United States one year after its date of passage.
That doesn't make sense unless there are already approved non-animal tests to replace all of the animal tests, and it doesn't appear that is the case in the United States.
When the European Union enacted a similar ban, it created several milestones over a decade, and created an agency to ensure there were viable alternatives approved before animal testing was halted. (Nice, thorough, explanation of how they went about that here: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/animal-testing/index_en.htm)
Many of the alternatives to animal testing used in the EU don't appear close to approval for use in the United States for some reason. For example, the US still apparently hasn't approved any in vitro skin irritation tests yet, and part of the reason is concern that they're not as effective as animal models (see: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rabbit-rest-can-lab-grown-human-skin-replace-animals/)