30 April 2008

Holy foetus!

And I thought it was problematic that we think of foetuses as people before they are born...A woman in Ohio thinks you can see an image of Jesus in her ultrasound.
Kind of like those pieces of toast that are sold on eBay with images of the Virgin Mary...

27 April 2008

Insure your pregnancy

It was only a matter of time before some forward thinking (read: money hungry) insurance company decided to swoop down on pregnant women as 'valued customers' in order to "keep pace with social trends and advances in medical technology".

ING has recently announced it it's new 'baby cover' as a way for pregnant women to 'insure' their pregnancies in the face of medical complication. Basically, women who have an ectopic pregnancy or eclampsia will get a $50,000 lump sum, while stillbirths qualify for a $10,000 payout (you would think it would be the other way around?!). As you might already have gathered, the insurance policy is aimed at 'older' mothers who are 'high risk' and the most inclined to be freaking out about their 'risk' constantly and therefore would be more willing to shell out money for insurance. As your age rises, so does your premium.

This makes me so insanely angry. Pregnant women are freaked out enough as it is. With all of the rules about everything from food to the kind of clothing you're 'allowed' to wear when you're pregnant, the idea that women need another institution telling them that they need to protect the lives of their unborn with the prospect of a massive financial pay out is ridiculous. The conditions that are covered under the policy are very rare and most women are very unlikely to develop them. Yet, now that the policy exists, more women will think that they have to insure themselves.

This is such a blatant money grab and ING does not provide incidence rates so women can assess whether they fall into a 'risk' category.

Sources: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/insurer-to-cover-birth-defects/2008/04/26/1208743326626.html

24 April 2008

Keep your bits to yourself during birth

So Dr. Michael Odent thinks that men should be banned from the birthing suite? You know what I think of that.

Today, in the Daily Mail, some moron decided to reinforce that one's sex life will be ruined if a male partner sees you give birth:

"A woman needs to preserve some mystery.
It's the key to eroticism.
Far better to let him see you propped up in bed, babe in arms, looking radiant.
Let him think you do this kind of thing effortlessly.
And unless you want your infant to be an only child, spare him the gruesome reality."

Seriously. Seriously?! I'm so sick of this 'childbirth is grotesque' thing in the media that is perpetuated by women first and foremost. Why in the world would you want to pretend that giving birth isn't a badge of honour and something to be proud of? Having to worry about what your male partner thinks about your bits while you're in the middle of labour sounds like a good way to set yourself up for post-natal depression.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=561558&in_page_id=1879

23 April 2008

Want a baby boy? Eat breakfast.

And more useless information from the people who study things:

According to a new British study, pregnant women that eat breakfast (and cereal in particular) around the time of conception are more likely to have a boy. Those women that consume less calories and skip breakfast are more likely to have a girl.

Argh. Bad, bad science.

I don't know about you, but I was always under the impression that sex was determined by sperm..so how in the world caloric intake affects this process is beyond me. Moreover, the methodology of the study is also highly unreliable. The research had 740 women keep a food diary before and after falling pregnant. They were then split into groups according to caloric intake. Self-report is a highly problematic methodology especially when it comes to women and food, a very sensitive and culturally meaningful issue. Let's face it. Informants lie about lots of things and it is very possible that the women who were in the lowest calorie group were purposely underreporting their intake.

I'm particularly troubled by the suggestion by one of the researchers that this information "could be of help to women wanting to balance their families." Right. And why might this logic lead to very bad things? As it has occurred throughout history and through to the present (Hello, China!?), such a proposition implies that girl babies are usually less desirable and now women will think that they can control sex through food. Ridiculous.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=561384&in_page_id=1774

21 April 2008

Epidurals: get one even before pain starts

I know it was only recently that I wrote about epidurals and the post generated quite a large response...Nevertheless, epidurals are back in the news as a result of a new book Enjoy your labor: A new approach to pain relief for childbirth, by Dr Gilbert Grant, director of obstetric anaesthesia at New York University Medical Center. Grant argues that the old adage of 'natural' is best when it comes to birth is no longer applicable. In fact, Grant suggests that women should have an epidural even before they experience any pain associated with birth.

Whilst I agree, as Grant contends, that there is relentless pressure on women to give birth 'naturally' and that many women feel guilty when they choose to manage pain with epidural, the fact is that Grant suggests the opposition or at least the feminist critique of pain management methods in misogynist. He says:

"Childbirth instructors describe epidurals as unnecessary, or even harmful, interventions and make women feel that requesting one is a sign of weakness that may harm their baby. Labour is seen as an extreme sport - ‘no pain, no gain' - and yet this quasi-religious fervour is based on myth and misconception."

Hmm. While there are contingents of 'natural' birth advocates who argue that all pain medication in birth is 'unnatural' and 'bad', the majority of feminist critiques surrounding the use of epidurals is not that women are 'bad' mothers if they choose to use them. Feminists argue that it is the way in which epidural is presented as the default option for pain management in a highly medicalised environment that is problematic. Grants continues:

"It is barbaric that pain should still be viewed as an integral, even desirable, element of childbirth.”

In fact, I don't think the work of any feminist scholar of childbirth suggests that women 'should be in pain' in order to have a 'real' or 'authentic' experience of birth. Whilst this might be part of cultural narratives or even imperatives surrounding how women should 'do' birth correctly, this is a much different angle from scholarly work in this area.

Even more alarming is this suggestion:

"Technological advances mean that women are able to administer their own dosage and this makes them feel more in control. Furthermore, studies show that babies born to women who have had epidurals come out in better shape than those from ‘natural' childbirth."

What really bothers me about this statement is the association between control and technology. Women clearly can be empowered with medical advances in pain management as well as with other forms of reproductive technology. However, Grant fails to recognise that 'empowerment' rests on choice and in many American hospitals, for instance, the notion of 'choice' becomes blurry when women become part of a cascade of interventions which limit her ability to make decisions on her own. For instance, the reason so many women in America use epidurals is not just because they want them; with the induction rate close to 90% in some New York hospitals, for instance, epidurals become essential because contractions are so intense without a gradual build up. In these case, an epidural becomes routinised as a necessary medical intervention when perhaps many of those same women might not have chosen an epidural had they been able to allow labour to progress 'naturally'.

Nevertheless, I think it is a very dangerous proposition to suggest that epidurals should be part and parcel of birth without the inclusion of their risks. Moreover, this whole 'epidural before pain' framework only entrenches the notion that birth is scary and painful. Again, of course for some women it is intensely painful and everyone should acknowledge that, but the idea that women should be pre-medicating in anticipation is just ridiculous. Why not encourage women to learn alternative ways to manage pain before resorting to chemicals?

Moreover, the idea that pain must be pre-managed also suggests that women can never have 'positive' experiences with intense pain. If the pain of birth was so horrible, women would never have babies. Many women tell me that whilst birth itself was one of the most challenging moments of their entire lives, they felt like they had accomplished something; not because they had endured alot of pain and survived. They felt accomplished because birth is an intensely visceral experience and for some women, feeling childbirth in every ounce of their being is something they would not want to give up with medical intervention.

In the Netherlands, women are not allowed to have epidurals unless the mother is in a high-risk category. Whilst, I do not necessarily agree with this more extreme measure, the truth is that the majority of Dutch women give birth at home with a midwife and the maternal and infant mortality rate is extremely low. Why is it that in rich, 'Western' countries maternal and infant mortality rates are still relatively high? The answer lies in the unnecessary invocation of medical interventions (and not only epidural).

What do you think?

Source: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3625980.ece

Women are still dying during birth

A new report in Australian reveals that at least one woman dies every fortnight during childbirth, especially in remote Indigenous communities. Many of these deaths have been unreported and only reinforces the need for a complete review of maternal morbidity. As many Aboriginal communities are underfunded and underresourced, it comes as no surprise that with this new information, the marker of a 'healthy' Australian health care system falls apart when it comes to Indigenous women.

Not only are Indigenous women more unlikely to receive prenatal care in mainstream hospitals, they are also discriminated against and even have little to no access to appropriate medical care even at the best of times. There are simply not enough doctors and midwives in these communities.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23559257-1702,00.html

20 April 2008

The tale of a pregnant defense minister...

It seems the world is up in arms given Spain's newest Minister of Defense is not only a woman but she is also 7 months pregnant..

Carme Chacon, 37, shown in the image above inspecting her troups, is being heralded by Spanish feminist as being a role model; that women can be everywhere, especially if they are mothers. Spanish sociologists see Chacon's pregnancy as signalling more than just gender equality. Rather, the appearance of 'a woman in full womanhood' is symbolic of a more feminine, humanitarian military force.

As per usual, many people are questioning whether this capable woman will be able to do her job like a man because she of her pregnancy. The question resting on everyone's lips seems to be whether Chacon will take the 16 weeks paid maternity leave to which she is entitled.

In spite of the consternation the Minister has provoked, the truth is that her appointment marks a 'radical changing of the old Guard' in which Chacon is one of 9 women appointed to Prime Minister Zapatero's Cabinet. Zapatero was only recently criticised by Berlesconi of Italy for having a Cabinet that was 'too pink'. Life for Spanish women has never been easy, especially under Franco, women were unable to even hold passports or bank accounts on their own. This is definitely a new day.

17 April 2008

Making more beautiful mothers with a nip and tuck

Well, I have seen the future and it is not good.
A new children's book has been written by a plastic surgeon in order to explain why 'mommy' will be more beautiful when she has a tummy tuck...and it's being released on Mother's Day.
"My Beautiful Mommy" is aimed at kids ages four to seven and features a plastic surgeon named Dr. Michael (a musclebound superhero type) and a girl whose mother gets a tummy tuck, a nose job and breast implants. Before her surgery the mom explains that she is getting a smaller tummy: "You see, as I got older, my body stretched and I couldn't fit into my clothes anymore. Dr. Michael is going to help fix that and make me feel better." Mom comes home looking like a slightly bruised Barbie doll with demure bandages on her nose and around her waist."
So 'mommy' recovers easily, with no complications and is 'more beautiful' after all of her fat has been sucked away. Excellent message to send to young children.
Seriously? No, really. SERIOUSLY?! I have no words.

Gwyneth Patrow speaks out about PND

Us magazine reports that Lady Paltrow revelas in the May edition of Vogue, following the birth of her second child Moses, she suffered postnatal depression but didn't even realise it at the time.

"I felt really out of my body," Paltrow says after giving birth. "I felt really disconnected. I felt really down ... I felt pessimistic.”

It's so refreshing to hear that celebrities are indeed, 'real' women, and they do experience the same things that everyone else does. We like to think that fame and fortune make life ridiculously easy but the truth is none of that can shield mothers from PND.


16 April 2008

Michael Odent says birth is women-only business

Leading obstetrician Michael Odent says he is finally able to say what he really thinks about birth: men should stay away. According to the doctor who has been delivering babies for 50 years:

"The effect of this is that, with a man present, a woman cannot be as relaxed as she needs to be during labour, and hence the process becomes longer and more difficult."

Odent says that when men are present in the birthing room, often their anxiety rubs off on the birthing women and disrupts the natural release of oxytocin (the wonder hormone that starts labour and helps with bonding). Moreover, Odent argues that men are at greater risk of negative post-natal symptoms particularly if they see their partners through a difficult birth.

Finally, and this is the part that really annoys me...Odent thinks that if a man sees his partner give birth he might be turned off by her sexually forever:

"There are many things we do in private in order to preserve a degree of modesty and mystery.
And, for the benefit of our sex lives, it may be worth adding childbirth to this list. "

This is so old school. Whilst some men I talked to in my study, for instance, were a bit freaked out by the whole process of birth, when they saw their babies being born that same fear just turned into love. The men I spoke to found their wives more attractive and felt more in love with them after birth because they felt it united them as a couple.

What do you think? Should men be kicked out of the birthing suite?

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=559913&in_page_id=1879

15 April 2008

Nicole Kidman and her invisible bump

I try not to judge..but Nicole Kidman is supposedly 6 months pregnant and the latest photo of her from last night at the Country Music Awards is a bit of a worry...perhaps it's a phantom pregnancy? She has no bump!

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=559755&in_page_id=1773

Source: http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/celebrity/251623/nicole-kidman-s-mini-baby-bump.html

Cate Blanchett: new baby

All of Australia is abuzz with the news that Cate Blanchett, who only yesterday gave birth to her third son, Ignatius, is still slated to attend the 2020 Summit this weekend, just six days later.

There has been plenty of talk about Blanchett's promise to co-chair the creative Australia panel following her latest birth as being 'too soon' to be engaged in activity which I think is ridiculous.

Most women who give birth 'normally' without complication recover very quickly. There is no reason why Cate can't get on her with life like any other person. No doubt that a new baby will challenge a good night's sleep but the idea that she should lock herself because she has just given birth is preposterous! Besides women who give birth in most hospitals these days get discharged within 24 hours so there is no reason to believe that birth should be treated like an illness.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/2020-summit-still-blanchetts-baby/2008/04/14/1208025090843.html

10 April 2008

Maternity leave is not a paid holiday

Natasha Kaplinsky, UK broadcaster, recently accepted a £1m paycheck per year for signing on to be the 'face' of Channel 5. However, only 6 weeks into her contract, the 35 year old newsreader announced she was 12 weeks pregnant. It seems despite the British government's increasingly 'family-friendly' workplace accommodations for mothers, Natasha's unborn baby is being positioned in the UK media as more of an inconvenience, rather than a blessing. Everyone it seems is outraged that a woman in her mid-30s would even think about accepting a job with any inclination that at some stage in professional life, she might have a baby.
In the Times Online today, one (female) journalist had this to say, referring to pregnancy as an 'intractable problem' with no solution:

"All this is extremely difficult and I am very uncertain as to what, if anything, can reasonably be done. However, surely the most important first step in dealing with such intractable problems is to be free to admit what they are. When hiring women of childbearing age is more problematic than hiring men or other women, employers should be allowed to say so. They should not be forced to pretend that it isn’t so, while at the same time making special allowances for working mothers and offering equal pay for what may not be equal services".

Ah. Right. So who will be in charge of the reproduction of the population is women aren't supposed to be allowed to stop and have babies?

And this v.angry journalist continues:

Many women seem to expect extraordinary rights and allowances so that they can keep their jobs whatever the cost and inconvenience to their employer and to be equally paid when they are not always of equal value. Government and public opinion support them.

Actually, Kaplinsky is not getting 'maternity leave' as she is freelance and is not even being paid. If she was in any other job, Kaplinsky would be entitled to 26 weeks off, regardless of how long she worked for her employer. Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) is paid for 26 weeks. For the first six weeks SMP is paid at 90% of average earnings and for the remaining 20 weeks SMP is £108 a week or 90% of average weekly earnings if this is less. The government has pledged that from 2007, paid maternity leave will be extended from six to nine months, worth an estimated extra £1,400.

So when it comes down to it, this newsreader, despite being promised a million dollar contract, is actually losing money because she's pregnant. She's not being 'equally paid' as angry Times journalist suggests and the ratings for Channel 5 have already gone up since she came on board which should suggest to her employers that hiring her was a good business decision.

It makes me so angry that people think that pregnant women get a great deal when they go on maternity leave. Seriously, having a baby is not like taking a holiday. Being a mother is work. New mothers do not, I repeat, DO NOT, sit on the lounge watching TV all day thinking about how great life is when they aren't working. Babies demand time and energy constantly. Of the new mothers in my study, not only did many of them find the transition to motherhood difficult in itself, the fact that many of them had to discontinue their paid work for the first time in their lives was extremely difficult. It takes a very strong woman to temporarily put her career on hold knowing that there is a chance that her employer could eliminate her position (especially in the US) or give her job to someone else like a 25 year old man who will not bring to the office the 'burdens' of motherhood. Moreover, the fact that in many countries maternity leave is still wholly underfunded and motherhood is not recognised as valuable work only suggests that many prominent 'Western' countries are falling v.short of their promises to maintain family-friendly policies.

09 April 2008

Ryan Sutter likes 'boobs'

Ryan Sutter, the man married to the gal formerly known as The Bachelorette, and now best known for her post-preggo body transformation, has revealed to Mom Logic that he gets turned on by breastfeeding...

Although it might appear 'refreshing' to hear a man praise his wife's maternal body counter to popular culture which continually reiterates that pregnant and post-baby bodies/boobs are a bit 'icky' when they aren't perfect, I am still slightly bothered by the fact that it seems that breasts are forever sexualised. We are a culture obsessed with breasts; breasts are the pinnacle, the defining attribute of womanhood. And yet, it seems that there is not a moment in a woman's life when her breasts can be divorced from sexuality and totally counter to how many new mothers feel about their breasts when they first start to breastfeed.

Of the women I followed in my study, many told me that they felt as though their breasts had transformed from sexual playthings to feeding 'tools'. Their breasts became functional, instruments of motherhood. A number of these women told me that they now felt like their breasts belonged to their babies and not to their partners. Therefore, I think Ryan Sutter's comment is very interesting because I bet the way that Trista feels about her own breasts is very different from the way that her husband perceives them (not that there isn't anything sexual or pleasurable about breastfeeding...you know what I mean).

Source: http://www.momlogic.com/2008/04/10_things_to_know_about_dads.php

Totally Tori

It's been awhile since I've talked about No(Tori)ous Spelling..

Now that she's 8 months preggo for the second time, it turns out that Tori loves her pregnant body.

"So far I've gained 25 pounds and am loving my body! During my first pregnancy with Liam, I spent a lot of time worried about my weight and how big I was getting and how I would lose it afterwards," she said. "But once I wasn't pregnant anymore, I missed it. I loved being pregnant!

Will Tori go back to Nutrisystem following her second birth?

Source: http://www.hiphopelements.com/article/read/4/20787/1/

08 April 2008

What to Expect gets a facelift

That book that everyone loves to hate, What to Expect When You're Expecting, has finally had a facelift. Seeing as the majority of preggos these days are no longer sitting on rocking chairs wearing frumpy maternity dresses with lace collars watching their lives pass them by, the latest edition of the book has a noticeably 'contemporary' version of pregnancy on its cover.
Now, in the new edition, you can find all of the same scary info as in previous editions, except this time the authors have included the dangers of hair colouring, botox, aromatherapy, teeth whitening, facials and other modern beauty practices. A few more things for you to freak out about...

Who yo baby daddy?

Headline: Minnie Driver reveals her budding bulge... but still no word on Daddy

It seems that no one can deal with the fact that an adult woman has decided to have a baby and not reveal the 'father' because clearly, all women who are pregnant are straight. Now, I'm not making any speculations about Minnie Driver's sexuality because it's none of my business, however, so bloody what if she doesn't want to tell people how she got pregnant or to whom?? I find the assumption that she is 'hiding' a man somewhere pretty ridiculous. Maybe she got a sperm donor? Maybe she's a lesbian? Who cares?!

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=557052&in_page_id=1773

07 April 2008

Another dumb warning.

Headline: Pregnant women warned on trans fats

Is there anything pregnant women haven't been warned about? Seriously.

More obvious information from the people that research things (totally exclusive of myself because clearly everything I research is highly important):

"We found that the fatty content of the babies' bodies increased when the mothers were fed the hydrogenated fat rich diet".

Ya think?

Source: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ig3uEjStXi1P8pUB2dl3JyYb7hcQ

06 April 2008

Nicole Richie: the next maternity designer?

So Nicole Richie wants to launch a maternity line. *Yawn*

"My line will be about making women look and feel good at a really emotional time. It's about showing your best self, not your tired, worn-down self," Richie said.

This annoys me. There is already too much pressure to be perfect when you're pregnant, aside from what clothes you are wearing. The idea that being 'worn down' is something women should hide is ridiculous. Celebrities have no place telling women what they should be wearing or how they should 'do' pregnancy because they have categorically different experiences. Most pregnant women actually do not want to spend alot of money on clothing that is only going to see them through a few months. Let's face it, being 'worn down' is part and parcel of the experience and there is no amount of clothing or money one can spend to get around the fact that when you are housing another human, it's alot of work.


Source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/people/richie-to-release-maternity-line/2008/03/19/1205602433479.html

03 April 2008

Pregnant bridal shop open for business

Considering I spent most of the holiday season in America writing an article about pregnant brides, I was chuffed to find that a maternity bridal shop has opened in the UK called Expectant Bride. For the most part, if you're pregnant and getting married, there are almost no retail outlets where you can shop. Pregnant brides are relegated to finding a dress in online stores or eBay. Not only are more pregnant brides wearing 'white', they can finally have personal consultations with a retailer that will help them find a dress that will actually fit a pregnant stomach.

Of course a shop like this causes some controversy. Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe thinks it is not an enterprise to celebrate. She said: “I think this shop is an extremely sad sign of the times.”

The pregnant bride has rarely been seen as a paradigm to be imitated; the transgressions of bodily boundaries for women during menstruation, pregnancy and lactation have historically contributed to women’s exclusion from the public sphere within Western culture (Douglas 1966; Martin 1992). The ‘ideal’ bride is, in many ways, still represented as a ‘beautiful seductress, virgin and mother’, drawing on images of Christianity, Greco-Roman beliefs about love and romance as well as beliefs about the gendered nature of ‘public’ and ‘private’ spaces.

In both Australia and the United States since World War II, nonmarital cohabitation and childbearing have increased significantly as Anglo middle-class women have had more opportunities for economic independence and education. However, these factors do not provide a complete picture of the trends away from marriage and ‘legitimacy’. Cherlin (1990) suggests, after 1960, men and women were afforded more freedom to challenge conventional paradigms of ‘family’ or ‘marriage’ such that childbearing and marriage became ‘choices’ rather than social requirements.

In particular, the selection of a wedding dress is one of the primary means by which pregnant brides challenge or submit to cultural directives surrounding marriage. Established as ‘proper’ bridal attire at the end of the nineteenth century following Queen Victoria’s marriage to Price Albert in 1840, the silk and lace white dress Queen Victoria wore culturally entrenched the necessity of a white dress in America and abroad. For decades, the pregnant bride was not considered to be a ‘legitimate’ consumer in the ‘West’; a maternity wedding dress, for example, was largely unheard of unless a bride had a dress custom-made or if she purchased a ‘normal’ wedding dress in a larger size. As the contemporary pregnancy is clearly a visible and highly commodified experience for middle-class women given the excessive costs associated with maternity fashion, baby accessories and even private prenatal care, it is no surprise that bridal retailers would capitalise on another niche market.


Saving fetuses one seatbelt at a time.


According to a new study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the 'lives' of 200 fetuses could be saved each year if pregnant women were only responsible enough to buckle up.

"Even if a fetus survives, premature delivery as a result of the crash can lead to low birth weight, respiratory problems and long-term physical or neurological problems, the authors said".

I find this very odd. Not necessarily that being in a car crash can cause fetal death, but that the authors consistently refer to a fetus as a 'fetus' and not a 'baby'. This is why. Given that the authors do not make any specifications as to how 'old' a fetus has to be in order to sustain injury or death, I would assume that if a pregnant woman was worried about harming her fetus chances are she would buckle her seat belt because she didn't want to harm her 'baby'. If the woman is worried about endangering another 'life', she is thinking about the 'life' growing inside of her as a 'baby'.

I have made a similar argument surrounding miscarriage; the reason why women are often so traumatised by this experience is because they are clearly attached to the pregnancy. A miscarriage is not just a loss of blood and tissue, it feels like the loss of a 'life'. Therefore, in the case of this seatbelt study, it seems odd to call a pregnancy a 'fetus' considering the whole point of the study is to make women more responsible for their unborn. Therefore, women need to be thinking about their fetuses as 'babies' because 'babies' are 'individuals' whereas fetuses (or at least I found in my research) are clinical and alien that are not characterised by anything that is necessarily 'human'.

Finally, shouldn't women be wearing seatbelts so they don't kill themselves in a car accident? What good will it be to have a living fetus if it has no mother?

That was my philosophy for the morning.

Source: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080402/seat-belt-use-by-pregnant-women-could-save-200-fetuses-a-year.htm
Creative Commons License
The Baby Bump Project by Meredith Nash is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.