As far as her "art" is concerned, I don't think anybody really has a right to judge what does and does not constitute art. The fact that she uses dead animals does not make it any less of a work of art, in my opinion. Most artists strive to evoke emotion and sometimes controversy, so if that was a goal of hers, she's definitely accomplished it. If these pieces of art had been just digitally enhanced photographs, people would call them beautiful and forget about them. She definitely wouldn't have received all of this attention and notoriety had they not been real.
Now as to my personal opinion of her art, I think it's disgusting and horrific! I could never find beauty in death or carcasses. The only statement it makes to me is how heartless and pitiless some people can be when it comes to their own personal gain. According to some articles I read, the only law she's breaking is the one that says she must have a veterinarian present when she kills the animals. Although I don't think she should be locked away as some people suggest, I also wouldn't hang a piece of that "art" on my wall if you paid me.
Interesting article about her gallery