Not offically "Accept or Reject" as noted in this article http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/01/3638165/sculpture-incites-debate-is-it.html
I didn't read this article until after I had photographed the artwork. Frankly, I do not see what some more conservative viewers imagine. As I viewed the statue, I personally wondered why she was so disjointed. And why had she lost her head and mid section? What did the artist mean by that??? Plus what choice is a headless woman making by focusing a camera at her missing head?

The placque with the artist comments reads:
"Choice of life, attention, and contempt.
Virtual and real.
Stick and Together"

Meanwhile, some people are not interested in a "deeper meaning" of a work of art.
Instead, they prefer to interpret all bare breasts as merely being titalating: even those breasts on a headless, disjointed statue. While staring at the statue, I was amazed how that tiny piece of blue "shirt" held the torso to the bottom half of the body. That got my attention more than the bare breasts.

Conservatives, who claim that this is obviously "a woman aroused", are petitioning a Grand Jury http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/06/06/kan_group_seeks_grand_jury_decision_on_artwork/
But how can they be tell that she wasn't just "cold" from having no pants on???
No one seems unduly interested in the bottom half of the sculpture, but they certainly are obsessed with the breasts.
Rumor has it that the same group has added nude, classical statues on the Country Club Plaza to their Grand Jury Hit list.

Meanwhile, here's an editorial in a local paper http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/the-irony-in-censoring-the-arboretum-statue/ So I'm not the only one who sees this statue as art and not the work of the Devil. It seems as if most other people also view the statue as art and nothing more.