CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – Congresswoman Nancy Mace introduced a bill Friday that would prohibit individuals who are registered on the National Sex Offender Registry from entering or receiving services at federally funded domestic violence and homeless shelters.
The introduced bill is called the ‘Safe Shelters for Survivors Act of 2026’ and would block federally funded shelters from housing those who are required to register on the National Sex Offender Registry, or lose their federal funding.
South Carolina is sixth in the nation for domestic violence, and many survivors rely on federally funded shelters for safety. Similarly, roughly 4,600 individuals experience homelessness across the state on any given night. These are the people the act is designed to protect, says Mace.
“Survivors fleeing abuse shouldn’t have to look over their shoulder in the one place designed to keep them safe,” said Congresswoman Mace. “The last thing a woman escaping violence or a homeless family in crisis needs is to find a registered sex offender in the next bed. These …
Related:
Mace continues her crusade by introducing bill allowing federal death penalty for child sex crimes
Read the hateful press release:
HR 7624 - Press Release02232026
According to Wikipedia, Congresswoman Mace is running for Governor of her state (South Carolina). Perhaps that is why she thinks it is a good idea to prohibit registrants from seeking protection in federally funded shelters. What she doesn’t know is that a person who is homeless, on or off the registry, is more dangerous that a person who has a home.
As usual, singled out regardless of the fact PARENTS would also be in said shelter with their kids…..Of course people who’ve murdered and otehr violent acts are allowed entry. All this proves is the registry is a punishment and its designed to dehumanize a class of people….
Where is her proof we are so dangerous we can’t dwell in a shelter??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Another teacher in nearby Georgia was arrested for straddling her 14 yr old student in her car parked in the school parking lot. Let’s worry about those already convicted being in shelters instead of using resources on other issues. Nancy Mace needs to retire from politics and get the help she needs if her staffers or former staffers accounts about her behavior are accurate.
Epstein is the new MeToo movement. Sounds crass and cynical when we know what a creep Weinstein and Epstein are but both have brought some true idiocy out into mainstream discussions. Mace wants nothing more than to get her name on a bill so she can sit back and say “I did that” when her Citadel education and political career leave her with nothing else.
Anyone and everyone should actually research Mace and her past in SC, including her book, and then reexamine this US Congressional representative and ask if the country has been better served with her there or is she emblematic of the problem in this country.
Nancy wants to force a vote on releasing Congress members’ sexual misconduct reports (NBC News 25 Feb 2026)
Nancy Mace’s + caste denials =$?
Written by Quiet too long 02/27/2026
Just as tax‑exempt churches cannot discriminate based on status without risking loss of exemption, federally funded shelters cannot enforce compelled speech or categorical exclusion without undermining the public‑benefit purpose of federal funding. When Congress conditions funding on exclusion, it risks transforming shelters into instruments of civil disability rather than public safety. Public money cannot be used to enforce compelled speech, nor to create status‑based barriers that deepen homelessness. If exclusion becomes the price of funding, then the funding itself becomes constitutionally suspect. And when any civil restriction requires compelled speech inside a federally funded institution, that institution becomes an agent of punishment rather than public service—violating the very civil/punitive boundary that federal law claims to preserve.
Disclaimer This text offers a constitutional and policy analysis based on publicly available statutes, case law, and academic commentary. It does not provide legal advice, does not assert wrongdoing by any individual or institution, and does not encourage or endorse noncompliance with existing laws. All interpretations are presented as protected opinion under the First Amendment and should be evaluated alongside guidance from qualified legal professionals before being used in any formal, legal, or organizational context.