I am re-bumping this post in the hope that it might find it's mark second time round.
Being on government agency mailing lists is the best way of being informed of important changes affecting the incidence, availability and incentive for circumcision, and to identify opportunities to present anti-circumcision arguments directly to policy-makers and regulators.
This is a particularly good avenue for those readers of a more studious nature, who may have limited time and resources to devote to anti-circumcision activities and in any event, aren't seeking to do so publicly as "intactivists".
Sometimes in these communications (such as blog.AIDS.gov), circumcision-proponents assume they are only speaking to friendly audiences, and let their guard down, presenting openings for counter arguments directly to policy-makers and regulators.
Members from the United States should also regularly check the regulations.gov site to look for opportunities to present arguments directly to regulatory agencies to reduce the incidence, availability and incentive for performing circumcision.
It would also be a good idea if someone could study the workings of the U.S. Congress and Senate to identify the relevant committees and processes for presenting a case against those agencies promoting circumcision. There are relevant details about the agencies and programs over at the foreskin-restoration.net forum, including the NIH, CDC, PEPFAR and Peace Corps amongst others (use the search and tag features on the forum to find them).
I have identified this information for the Australian and UK Parliaments, but the U.S. Congress operates slightly differently.