Medscape put up an article today from the journal, Nature Clinical Practical Urology Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2009;6(2):74-75) in which Robert S. Van Howe "refutes claims that circumcision has a protective effect from genital cancer, urinary tract infections, and sexually transmitted infections." His last paragraph reads, " Circumcision has no medical indication during the newborn period, and it is not the first-line preventitive for any illness. Very few adult men choose to be circumcised, full disclosure is a rarity, and parental proxy consent for newborn circumcision is not valid. [referenced] No reason exists that can justify why circumscision cannot wait until the infant is old enough to choose for himself. As a public health measure, newborn circumcision in the US has failed to show a benefit in protecting against cervical cancer, penile cancer, STIs, and HIV."
The reference to "parental proxy consent" comes from Svoboda JS et al. (2000) Informed consent for neonatal circumscison: an ethical and legal conundrum. J Contemp Health Law Policy 17: 61-133.
You can access Van Howe's article through Medscape.